alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-4.20



 Exhibit 4.20 
 FIFTH AMENDMENT TO 
 AGREEMENT AND PLAN OF MERGER, CONVERSION AND SHARE
EXCHANGE 
 This FIFTH AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT AND PLAN OF MERGER, CONVERSION AND SHARE EXCHANGE
(“Amendment”), effective as of the Amendment Effective Date, is by and among SearchMedia Holdings, Limited (as successor by conversion to Ideation Acquisition Corp., a corporation incorporated in the State of Delaware,
USA and ID Arizona Corp., a corporation incorporated in the State of Arizona, USA) (“SM Cayman”), Earl Yen (the “CSV Representative”), Tommy Cheung and Stephen Lau (collectively, the
“DB Representative”), and Qinying Liu (the “Management Shareholder Representative” and, together with the CSV Representative and the DB Representative, the “SM Shareholders’
Representatives”). As used herein, “Amendment Effective Date” means the date upon which a majority of the SM Shareholders Representatives have signed this Amendment, as indicated on the signature
page hereto. 
 Recitals 
 WHEREAS, SearchMedia International Limited, a company organized under the laws of the Cayman Islands (the “Company”), SM Cayman, the SM Shareholders’ Representatives
and Linden, along with the other parties thereto, have previously entered into that certain Agreement and Plan of Merger, Conversion and Share Exchange dated as of March 31, 2009, including the exhibits and schedules thereto (as amended, the
“SEA”); 
 WHEREAS, the parties to the SEA also desire to make certain amendments to the SEA as
set forth herein; and 
 WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 16.2 of the SEA, Ideation and a majority of the SM
Shareholders’ Representatives wish to amend the SEA to reflect the terms set forth below. 
 Agreement

 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, the mutual covenants set forth herein, and for other good and
valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereby agree as follows: 
  

	1.	Section 12.4 of the SEA is hereby deleted in its entirety. The numbering of the remainder of Article XII shall remain unchanged. 


 

	2.	Except as amended by the terms of this Amendment (and as affected by the releases set forth in those certain Share Repurchase and Settlement Agreements, dated on or
about the date hereof, between SM Cayman and each of China Seed Ventures, L.P. and Qinying Liu and any other releases executed by any SM Shareholder), the SEA remains in full force and effect. 


 

	3.	Unless otherwise defined, capitalized terms used herein have the meanings given to them in the SEA. 


[Signature Page Follows] 

  
 1 








 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the date and year first set forth
above. 
  

			
	SEARCHMEDIA HOLDINGS, LIMITED
		
	By:	 	  

	Name:	 	Paul Conway
	Title:	 	President and Chief Executive Officer
	Date:	 	January     , 2012
	
	MANAGEMENT SHAREHOLDER REPRESENTATIVE:
	
	  

	Qinying Liu
	Date: January     , 2012
	
	CSV REPRESENTATIVE:
	
	  

	Earl Ching-Hwa Yen
	Date: January     , 2012
	
	DB REPRESENTATIVE:
	
	  

	Tommy Cheung
	Date: January     , 2012
	
	  

	Stephen Lau
	Date: January     , 2012



  
 2
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Curtis J. Parker, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge, Cotelligent, Inc.s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Cotelligent, Inc.



|                   |  |     |  |                                                     
|------------------ |  | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|Date: May 13, 2005 |  | By: |  | /s/ Curtis J. Parker                                
|                   |  |     |  | Curtis J. Parker                                    
|                   |  |     |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer



24
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6347 

To limit cost-sharing for prescription drugs, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 9, 2023 

Ms. MANNING introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To limit cost-sharing for prescription drugs, and for other 

purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Capping Prescription 

5 Costs Act of 2023’’. 

6 SEC. 2. CAP ON PRESCRIPTION DRUG COST-SHARING. 

7 (a) QUALIFIED HEALTH PLANS.—Section 1302(c) of 

8 the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (42 

9 U.S.C. 18022(c)) is amended— 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6347 IH

1 (1) in paragraph (3)(A)(i), by inserting ‘‘, in2 cluding cost-sharing with respect to prescription 

3 drugs covered by the plan’’ after ‘‘charges’’; and 

4 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

5 ‘‘(5) PRESCRIPTION DRUG COST-SHARING.— 

6 ‘‘(A) 2025.—For plan years beginning in 

7 2025, the cost-sharing incurred under a health 

8 plan with respect to prescription drugs covered 

9 by the plan shall not exceed $250 per month for 

10 each enrolled individual, or $500 for each fam11 ily. 

12 ‘‘(B) 2026 AND LATER.— 

13 ‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—In the case of any 

14 plan year beginning in a calendar year 

15 after 2025, the limitation under this para16 graph shall be equal to the applicable dol17 lar amount under subparagraph (A) for 

18 plan years beginning in 2025, increased by 

19 an amount equal to the product of that 

20 amount and the medical care component of 

21 the consumer price index for all urban con22 sumers (as published by the Bureau of 

23 Labor Statistics) for that year. 

24 ‘‘(ii) ADJUSTMENT TO AMOUNT.—If 

25 the amount of any increase under clause 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 6347 IH

1 (i) is not a multiple of $5, such increase 

2 shall be rounded to the next lowest mul3 tiple of $5.’’. 

4 (b) GROUP HEALTH PLANS.—Section 2707(b) of the 

5 Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg–6(b)) is 

6 amended— 

7 (1) by striking ‘‘annual’’; and 

8 (2) by striking ‘‘paragraph (1) of section 

9 1302(c)’’ and inserting ‘‘paragraphs (1) and (5) of 

10 section 1302(c) of the Patient Protection and Af11 fordable Care Act’’. 

12 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

13 subsections (a) and (b) shall take effect with respect to 

14 plans beginning after December 31, 2024. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
#### * Dorcas Brown *versus*William Brown.

A constable is not competent to serve a summons, issuing upon a libel filed for a divorce.

This was a libel for a divorce from the bonds of matrimony. 1'he libel was duly filed in the clerk’s office; and a summons was thereupon issued, directed to the sheriff, his deputy, or any constable of *Boston,*and it was served and returned by a constable. The Court dismissed the libel, on the ground that a constable had no authority to serve the summons.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6507 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6507

 To amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of 
    Veterans Affairs to furnish or replace a headstone, marker, or 
    medallion for the grave of an eligible Medal of Honor recipient 
regardless of the recipient's dates of service in the Armed Forces, and 
                          for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 29, 2023

 Mr. Luttrell introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of 
    Veterans Affairs to furnish or replace a headstone, marker, or 
    medallion for the grave of an eligible Medal of Honor recipient 
regardless of the recipient's dates of service in the Armed Forces, and 
                          for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Mark Our Place Act''.

SEC. 2. EXPANSION OF ELIGIBILITY FOR GOVERNMENT-FURNISHED HEADSTONE, 
              MARKER, OR MEDALLION FOR MEDAL OF HONOR RECIPIENTS.

    (a) In General.--Section 2306(d)(5)(C) of title 38, United States 
Code, is amended--
            (1) by striking clause (i);
            (2) in clause (ii), by inserting ``(except that 
        subparagraph (B)(i) of such paragraph shall not apply)'' after 
        ``paragraph (4)''; and
            (3) by redesignating clauses (ii) and (iii) as clauses (i) 
        and (ii), respectively.
    (b) Technical Correction.--Section 2306(d)(5) of such title is 
amended by striking ``section 491'' both places it appears and 
inserting ``section 2732''.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 13.2

**Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant  to 18 U. S. C. Section 1350,   as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section  906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of WAVECOM S.A.  (the “Company”) hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge,  that:

| (i) | the Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and |
|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (ii) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated: April 11,      2007 | /s/ Chantal Bourgeat                                              |
|----------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                            |                                                                   |  |
|                            | Chantal Bourgeat        Chief Financial Officer        Wavecom SA |

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C § 1350 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended or incorporated by reference in any registration statement of the Company filed under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.

**A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff.**

----
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Adrian CHAVERS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-11126 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(March 7, 2017)

Andrea G. Hoffman, Wifredo A. Ferrer, Susan R. Osborne, Emily M. Smachetti, Sivashree Sundaram, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, Bruce E. Reinhart, McDonald Hopkins, LLC, West Palm Beach, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Mark Clifford Katzef, Mark C. Katzef, PA, Aventura, FL, Adrian Chavers, Coleman, FL, for Defendant-Appellant

Before WILSON, ROSENBAUM, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Adrian Chavers appeals the district court’s denial of his motion—based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines—to reduce his sentence, pursuant to § 3582(c)(2). The district court correctly concluded that Chavers was ineligible for a sentence reduction. Amendment 782 did not lower his guidelines range. Amend*986ment 782 only impacts on the guideline ranges under § 2Dl.l(c). Chavers was sentenced using the guideline provisions in U.S.S.G. § 2Dl.l(d), § 2A1.1, and § 5G1.2(a).

AFFIRMED.
#### JOSEPH GRIGERIK *v.*GARY SHARPE

The defendants’ cross petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 45 Conn. App. 775 (AC 15099), is granted, limited to the following issues:

“1. Did the Appellate Court properly hold that only the intent of the promisee, and not the intent of both contracting parties, is dispositive of the rights of an alleged third-party beneficiary of a contract?

“2. Where the jury had specifically found that the plaintiff was neither an ‘intended’ nor ‘contemplated’ beneficiary of a contract between the defendant and another, but only a ‘foreseeable’ beneficiary of that contract, did the Appellate Court properly remand the case for retrial on the third-party beneficiary claim rather than entering judgment for the defendants?”

*919The Supreme Court docket number is SC 15779X01.

*Lorinda S. Coon,*in support of the petition.

Decided September 24, 1997
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rogelio Umberto COTA-VALENZUELA, a.k.a. Rogelio Cota-Valenzuela, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-10091

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted November 16, 2016 *

Filed November 21, 2016

*946Beverly K. Anderson, Esquire, Robert Lally Miskell, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, USTU—Office of the US Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Rogelio Umberto Cota-Valenzuela, Pro Se.

Before: LEAVY, BERZON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Rogelio Umberto Cotar-Valenzuela appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate and remand.

Cota-Valenzuela contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. The district court determined that Cota-Valenzuela was not entitled to a sentence reduction because his sentence was based on the parties’ Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement, rather than the Guidelines range. In so doing, the district court applied the test set forth in *United States v. Austin,*676 F.3d 924 (9th Cir. 2012), and did not have the benefit of our recent decision in *United States v. Davis,*825 F.3d 1014 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (overruling *Austin*and adopting the plurality opinion’s approach in *Freeman v. United States,*564 U.S. 522, 131 S.Ct. 2685, 180 L.Ed.2d 519 (2011)). Accordingly, we remand for the district court to determine in the first instance whether Cota-Valenzuela is entitled to relief in light of *Davis.*We express no opinion as to the merits of Cota-Valenzuela’s motion.

VACATED and REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3,
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6533 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6533

  To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to require a Federal 
     medical assistance percentage of 100 percent for urban Indian 
                 organizations, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 30, 2023

 Mr. Ruiz (for himself, Mr. Bacon, Mr. Cole, and Ms. Davids of Kansas) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                          Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to require a Federal 
     medical assistance percentage of 100 percent for urban Indian 
                 organizations, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Urban Indian Health Parity Act''.

SEC. 2. FULL FEDERAL MEDICAL ASSISTANCE PERCENTAGE FOR URBAN INDIAN 
              ORGANIZATIONS.

    Section 1905(b) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d(b)) is 
amended by inserting after ``by an Indian tribe or tribal organization 
(as defined in section 4 of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act)'' 
the following: ``, or through an urban Indian organization (as defined 
in section 4 of such Act) pursuant to a grant or contract with the 
Indian Health Service under the Indian Health Care Improvement Act''.
                                 <all>
```
#### PEOPLE *v.*JORDAN.

Appeal from Recorder’s Court of Detroit, Scallen (John P.), J.

Submitted Division 1 August 13, 1968, at Detroit.

(Docket No. 4,412.)

Decided September 23, 1968.

Richard Jordan was convicted of attempted larceny from the person on plea of guilty. Defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

*Frank J. Kelley,*Attorney General, *Robert A. Derengoski,*Solicitor General, *William L. Cabalan,*Prosecuting Attorney, *Samuel J. Torina,*Chief Appellate Lawyer, *Arthur N. Bishop, Jr.,*Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.

*Jack J. Kraisman,*for defendant on appeal.

Per Curiam.

Defendant Richard Jordan pleaded guilty on August 26, 1966, to the charge of attempted larceny from the person* and was convicted and sentenced. This Court granted leave to appeal April 10, 1968, the defendant contending that the trial court failed to comply with GCR 1963, 785.3(2) ivhen accepting the guilty plea. The people have now filed a motion to affirm the conviction.

The recent decisions of the Michigan Supreme Court regarding GCR 1963, 785.3(2) and especially *266
      *People*v. *Winegar*(1968), 380 Mich 719, show that the question presented here on appeal is unsubstantial and requires no formal argument or submission.

Affirmed.

Lesinski, C. J., and J. H. Gillis and Quinn, JJ., concurred.

CL 1948, § 750.92 (Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 28.287); CL 1948, § 750.357 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.589).
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

         In connection with the Annual Report of AngioGenex, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Martin Murray, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-
Oxley Act of 2002, 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 result of operations of the
Company.


/s/ Martin Murray
-----------------------
    Martin Murray
    Chief Financial Officer

April 17, 2007


<PAGE>
#### PEOPLE *v.*EMMONS.

1. Perjury — Oath Required by Law.

The crime of perjury is not committed unless the oath is one that is required or authorized by law (OL 1948, § 750.423).

2. Same — Oath Required by Law — Assumed Name Certificate.

Conviction of defendant of perjury, for swearing falsely to an assumed name certificate, *held,*to be . error, since an oath as to- the truth of the certificate was not required or authorized by the assumed name statute or the forms provided pursuant to it,(CL 1948, § 750.423; CLS 1961, §445.1).

.References for Points in Headnotes

[1, 2] 41 Am Jur, Perjury § 15.

Appeal from Ingham; Coash (Louis E.),-J.

Submitted Division 2 February 7, 1968, at Lansing.

(Docket No. 4,087.)

Decided June 17, 1968.

*661Donald Emmons was convicted of perjury. Defendant appeals.

Reversed.

*Frank J. Kelley,*Attorney General, *Robert A. Derengoski,*Solicitor General, *Donald L. Reisig,*Prosecuting Attorney, and *James R. Ramsey,*Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.

*K. James Starr,*for defendant on appeal.

T. G. Kavanagh, J.

On leave granted, Donald Emmons appeals his conviction of the crime of perjury. CL 1948, § 750.423 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.665). Emmons executed an assumed name certificate pursuant to CLS 1961, § 445.1 (Stat Ann’-1964 Rev § 19.821), and in the presence of a notary public he falsely signed the name “Donald Walker” at the bottom of the certificate and acknowledged that he had executed it. The notary testified, at the trial, that before she signed as notary Emmons swore to the truth of the statements made in the certificate. It is this oath, before the notary, upon which the perjury charge was based. The crime of perjury under our statute, *supra,*is not committed' unless the oath is one that is authorized or required by law. *People*v. *Fox*(1872), 25 Mich 492, *Beecher*v. *Anderson*(1881), 45 Mich 543. That Emmons did in fact swear falsely as to the truth of the certificate is of no significance if the oath was not required or authorized. See *People*v. *Gaige*(1872), 26 Mich 29 and *Metzger*v. *Fire Assurance Co.*(1894), 102 Mich 334. We hold that Emmons’ conviction must be set aside because neither the assumed name statute, *supra,*nor the form provided pursuant • thereto authorizes or requires an oath as to the truth of the certificate.

Reversed.

Quinn, P. J., and Gorkin, J., concurred.