alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Amendment No. 1 to Warrant to Purchase Stock Agreement, dated February 19, 2009



 Exhibit 4.12 
 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO WARRANT 
 TO 
 PURCHASE COMMON STOCK 
 THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO WARRANT TO PURCHASE COMMON STOCK (this “Amendment”) is entered into as of the 19th day of February
2009, by and between ARCA biopharma, Inc., a Delaware corporation (f/k/a Nuvelo, Inc.) and InterWest Partners IX, LP. 
 Recitals

 A. The Holder was previously issued a Warrant to Purchase Common Stock dated as of October 10, 2008 (the “Warrant”).
Capitalized terms used in this Amendment, but not otherwise defined in this Amendment, shall have the meanings assigned to them in the Warrant. 
 B. The
Holder and ARCA biopharma, Inc., a Delaware corporation (f/k/a Nuvelo, Inc.) desire to amend the Warrant to reflect the closing of the Merger and the exchange of the common stock of the Corporation (as defined below) for the common stock of ARCA
biopharma Colorado, Inc., a Delaware corporation (f/k/a ARCA biopharma, Inc.) in connection with such closing. 
 Amendments 

 1. The definition of the term “Exercise Price” in Section 1(b) of the Warrant shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the
following: 
 “(b) “Exercise Price” shall mean $9.7406, subject to adjustment pursuant to the terms of the
Warrant, including Section 5 of the Warrant.” 
 2. The definition of the term “Exercise Shares” in Section 1(c) of the Warrant
shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: 
 “(c) “Exercise Shares” shall mean 30,015
shares of common stock of the Corporation (the “Common Stock”) issuable upon the exercise of the Warrant, subject to adjustment pursuant to the terms of the Warrant, including Section 5 of the Warrant.” 
 3. The following defined term shall be added to Section 1 of the Warrant: 
 “(e) “Corporation” shall mean ARCA biopharma, Inc. a Delaware corporation (f/k/a Nuvelo, Inc.).” 
 4. Except for revisions expressly set forth in this Amendment, the parties hereby ratify and confirm the terms of the Warrant in their entirety. 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Amendment to be effective as of the date first set
forth above. 
  

									
	Corporation:	 		 	Holder:
			
	ARCA BIOPHARMA, INC.	 		 	InterWest Partners IX, LP
			
		 		 	By: InterWest Management Partners IX, LLC
					
	By: 	 	/s/ Christopher D. Ozeroff	 		 	By: 	 	/s/ Linda Grais
		 	 Christopher D. Ozeroff, Executive Vice
 of Business
Development and General Counsel
	 		 		 	Linda Grais, Venture Member
Exhibit 23.1


               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS





         We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form S-8 pertaining to TreeSource Industries, Inc. (formerly WTD
Industries, Inc.) 1996 Stock Option Plan with respect to the financial
statements of TreeSource Industries, Inc. which appear in the TreeSource
Industries, Inc. Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended April 30, 2001,
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.




/s/ Moss Adams LLP
----------------------
MOSS ADAMS LLP

Beaverton, Oregon
June 15, 2001























                                      -72-
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

29 April, 2020

Army National Guard (ARNG) Division Artillery (DIVARTY) Headquarters Announcement

The Director of the Army National Guard, Lt Gen. Daniel R. Hokanson, announced today the 

location of the newest Division Artillery (DIVARTY) Headquarters will be assigned to the 34th

Infantry Division, which will be located in Minnesota. The DIVARTY will be fully operational and 

activated with an effective date of 2 September 2022. 

Army National Guard Division Artillery (DIVARTY) provides a long range precision fire support 

capability and the DIVARTY HQ will serve as a headquarters element in charge of all of the 

division’s artillery assets.

For more information regarding the Army National Guard, media may contact Lt. Col. Jamie 

Davis at (703) 607-5816 or by email at Jamie.A.Davis.Mil@Mail.Mil.

xxx
Paris D. EVANS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-2605

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed March 20, 2018

Paris D. Evans, Mayo, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Robin A. Compton, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LAMBERT, EDWARDS and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.
STIRLING HOMES, LLC, Appellant, v. The RESIDENCES ON HOLLYWOOD BEACH CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellee.

No. 4D17-2552

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 19, 2018

Michael Heidt of the Law Office of Gable & Heidt, Hollywood, for appellant.

Carolina Sznajderman Sheir and Darrin Gursky of Gursky Ragan, P.A., Miami, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

*Affirmed.*

Gerber, C.J., Damoorgian and Klingensmith, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND

PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL
OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 13a-14(b)
OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Annual Report
of New World Brands, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB/A for the year ended May 31, 2003
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date therein specified (the
Report), the undersigned, Allen Salzman, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and
Marvin Ribotsky, Chairman of the Board and Vice President of the Company, each certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of our knowledge:

|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the
          Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|(2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
          respects, the financial condition and results of operations of New World Brands,
          Inc.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|                                                                                                                                |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: November 20, 2003
       
                       
                       
                       
Date: November 20, 2003 | By /s/ Allen Salzman
  
       Allen Salzman
       Chief Executive Officer
       (principal executive officer)
By /s/ Marvin Ribotsky
  
       Marvin Ribotsky
       Chairman of the Board and Vice President
       (principal financial officer)
AO 450 (Rev. 11/11) Judgment in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL ACTION

The court has ordered that (check one):

u the plaintiff (name) recover from the

defendant (name) the amount of

dollars ($ ), which includes prejudgment

interest at the rate of %, plus post judgment interest at the rate of % per annum, along with costs.

u the plaintiff recover nothing, the action be dismissed on the merits, and the defendant (name)

recover costs from the plaintiff (name)

.

u other:

.

This action was (check one):

u tried by a jury with Judge presiding, and the jury has

rendered a verdict.

u tried by Judge without a jury and the above decision

was reached.

u decided by Judge on a motion for

.

Date: CLERK OF COURT

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

11/20/19

 Southern District of Ohio

Wendy Stewart

3:18-CV-237

✔ Judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant; Case is remanded to the Commissioner under

sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further consideration

✔ Sharon L. Ovington

Decision and Entry
Exhibit
        23.01
 
 CONSENT
        OF INDEPENDENT
 REGISTERED
        PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
 
 
 We
        have
        issued our report dated March 31, 2006, accompanying the consolidated financial
        statements included in the Annual Report of SAN Holdings, Inc. on Form 10-K
        for
        the year ended December 31, 2005. We hereby consent to the incorporation
        by
        reference of said report in the Registration Statement of SAN Holdings, Inc.
        on
        Form S-8 (File No 333-81910).
 
 
 */s/GRANT
        THORNTON, LLP*
 
 
 Denver,
        Colorado
 March
        31,
        2006
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-10945

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

KELLY WOODERSON BURKETT,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:15-CR-62-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Kelly Wooderson Burkett pleaded guilty to possession with intent to 

distribute methamphetamine. Burkett argues that, because she was not 

involved in importation, the district court erred by imposing a two-level 

importation enhancement. She acknowledges that this argument is foreclosed 

by United States v. Foulks, 747 F.3d 914, 915 (5th Cir. 2014). 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 6, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-10945 Document: 00513942562 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/06/2017
No. 15-10945

2

She also argues that the district court erred by increasing her offense

level by two levels, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1, because she attempted to 

obstruct or impede justice. The district court stated specifically that even if it 

erred by applying the enhancement, it would have imposed the same sentence. 

Accordingly, any error in applying the enhancement is harmless. See United 

States v. Gutierrez-Mendez, 752 F.3d 418, 429-30 (5th Cir. 2014); see also 

United States v. Shepherd, ___ F.3d ___, 2017 WL 543219, *2 (5th Cir. Feb. 9, 

2017).

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-10945 Document: 00513942562 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/06/2017
<TABLE> <S> <C>
               
<ARTICLE>               5
                                
<S>                                        <C>  
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                           SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                     417,881
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                            1,624,855
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         2,275,604
<PP&E>                                  48,731,939
<DEPRECIATION>                          17,906,668
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          33,337,050
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                    2,613,854
<BONDS>                                  4,620,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                    45,174
<OTHER-SE>                              15,460,621
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            33,337,050
<SALES>                                  7,473,959
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         7,749,489
<CGS>                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                            2,481,057
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           574,857
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         256,856
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             29,031
<INCOME-TAX>                                21,394
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          7,637
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                 7,637
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .00
        
                            

</TABLE>
Ronda WEST, Appellant, v. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as trustee FOR the CERTIFICATEHOLDERS OF BEAR STEARNS ASSET-BACKED SECURITIES I TRUST 2004-AC6, ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2003-AC6, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-5426

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 7, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

March 7, 2014

s0304 

# Order

Clerk March 7, 2014

148722

SC: 148722

In re RANDOLP H/HARTMAN, Minors

. COA: 316831

Oakland CC Family Division:

2011

- 780748

- NA

_______________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 23, 2014

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### Gillen *v.*Edge.

4-8787

217 S. W. 2d 926

Opinion delivered March 7, 1949.

*Byron Bogará,*for appellant.

*Robinson <& Parle,*for appellees.

Gteobge Pose Smith, J.

Appellant is the mother of Carolyn Sue Williams, now ten years old. In 1943 appellant consented to an order of the Pulaski Probate Court by which the appellees adopted this child. Carolyn Sue lived with the appellees until they were divorced; she now lives with her foster mother.

On November 18, 1947, appellant petitioned the probate court to annul the adoption order, alleging that appellees have failed to provide a suitable home for the child, that Mrs Edge has publicly abused and beaten her, and that since the adoption proceedings the appellees have been divorced, remarried, and again divorced. The trial court sustained a motion to dismiss the petition, on the theory that appellant is not the proper party plaintiff. The court reasoned that by consenting to the order the appellant disclaimed any interest in the child’s future and that the Juvenile Court, which had the child’s care at the time of the earlier proceedings, is the proper plaintiff.

*777We think the court erred in dismissing the petition. Both the statute in force in 1943 (Pope’s Digest, § 263) and the present law (Ark. Stats. [1947], § 56-110) provide that a petition to annul an adoption order may he filed if the adoptive parents fail to perform their obligations. Neither act specifies by whom the petition must he filed, and it is obvious that the natural mother ordinarily has a deeper interest in her child’s welfare than any one else. Appellant’s consent to the proceedings was of course based on the assumption that the appellees would give her daughter proper care. If they have not done so, appellant certainly has the privilege of bringing that fact to the court’s attention. We do not construe Ark. Stats. (1947), § 56-118, as vesting in the Child Welfare Division the exclusive power to seek annulment of an adoption order.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000882343
<NAME> 90BC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         124,050
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  118,230
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               242,280
<PP&E>                                       9,569,201
<DEPRECIATION>                               6,612,541
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,198,940
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           33,679
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,165,261
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,198,940
<SALES>                                        588,581
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               593,203
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  399,745
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                193,458
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            193,458
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   193,458
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    16.10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-12-00197- CV

In re John Mark Quaak

ORI GINAL P ROCEEDI NG F ROM WI LLIAM SO N COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Relator, J ohn Mark Quaa k, an inmate in the Texas Depa rtment of Criminal J ustice, filed a pro se petition seeking a “re straining order with preliminary prev en t i v e injunction” in this Court. L ooking to the substance of Quaa k’s petiti o n , ra ther than its title or form, we construe his petition as a petition for writ of mandamus. See Surgitek, Bristol-Myers Corp. v. Abel , 997 S.W .2d 598, 601 (Tex. 1999) (cour ts look to substance of pleading ra t h er than its caption or form to deter

mine its nature ); see also Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 (West Supp. 2010); Tex. R. App. P. 52.1. I n his petition, Quaa k asks us to compel cer

tain named individuals of the law library staff and administrative staff of the Nea l Unit of the Texas Depa rtment of Criminal J ustice to take, or ref rain from taking , particula r actions in connec tion with providing him with leg al writing supplies. This Court does not h av e m andamus jurisdiction over the Texas Depa rtment of Criminal J ustice or personne l there of. By statute, this Court has t h e au t h o ri t y to issue a writ of manda m u s aga i n s t “a judge of a district or county court in the court of appeals di strict” and other writs as nece ssary to enfor ce our appellate jurisdiction. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221. Staff members of the Nea l Unit are not parties ag ainst whom we may issue a writ of mandamus. Nor hasQuaa

k demonstrated that the exercise of our writ power is nece ssary to enfor ce our jurisdiction. We have no jur isdiction to gra nt Quaak a

ny relief

. Acc ording ly , the petition is dism issed for wa nt of jurisdiction.

__________________________________________ J . Woodfin J ones, Chief Just ice Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Pemberton a nd Rose Dismissed For Want of Jurisdiction Filed: May

3, 2012

2
IIB 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 27 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 20, 2021 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Rules and 

Administration 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Providing for the appointment of Barbara Barrett as a citizen regent of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian 

Institution. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That, in accordance with section 5581 of the Revised Stat4 utes (20 U.S.C. 43), the vacancy on the Board of 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

HJ 27 RFS 

1 Regents of the Smithsonian Institution, in the class other 

2 than Members of Congress, occurring by reason of the ex3 piration of the term of David M. Rubenstein of Maryland 

4 on May 7, 2021, is filled by the appointment of Barbara 

5 M. Barrett of Arizona. The appointment is for a term of 

6 1,912 days, beginning on May 8, 2021, or the date of the 

7 enactment of this joint resolution, whichever occurs later. 

Passed the House of Representatives May 20, 2021. 

Attest: CHERYL L. JOHNSON, 

Clerk. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Oddis Omar REYESVALLADARES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-1183

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[April 5, 2018]

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Tom Wm. Odom, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Marc B. Hernandez, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

*Affirmed.*

Ciklin, Conner and Forst, JJ., concur.
Rachel R. Ball,

Plaintiff,

V.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

Case No. 2:18-cv-376

Judge Michael H. Watson

Magistrate Judge Deavers

ORDER

On July 15, 2019, Magistrate Judge Deavers issued a Report and

Recommendation {"R&R") recommending that the Commissioner's decision in

this social security case be reversed and that the action be remanded under

Sentence Four of § 405(g).

The R&R advised the parties of their right to object to the same and of the

consequences of failing to do so, including that failure to object would result in

both the waiver of de novo review by the Undersigned as well as waiver of the

right to appeal the judgment of the District Court. R&R 12, ECF No. 17. The

deadline for filing objections has passed, and none were filed. Accordingly, the

Court ADOPTS the R&R. The Commissioner's decision is REVERSED, and this

case is REMANDED under Sentence Four of § 405(g).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

MICHAEL H. WATSON, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
##### 



Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and in
connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Carmike Cinemas, Inc. (the
Corporation) for the period ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the
undersigned, the Senior Vice President  Finance, Treasurer and Chief Financial
Officer of the Corporation, certifies that: (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Corporation. /s/ Martin A. DurantMartin A. DurantSenior Vice President  Finance,Treasurer and Chief Financial OfficerDecember 13, 2004
Dean APOCKOTOS, Appellant, v. PUBLIX SUPER MARKETS, INC., Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-69

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed January 26, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.