alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ex66.htm






  





  











  













 


DEMAND PROMISSORY NOTE


 


 



Exhibit 10.66




 







 


 







 


 


$450,000                                                                           Date:  January 13, 2012


 


 







 


 


FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned jointly and severally promise to pay to the order of Warren Breslow, the sum of Four Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars and no/100 ($450,000.00), together with interest of 10% per annum on the unpaid balance.


 


 


The entire principal and any accrued interest shall be fully and immediately payable UPON DEMAND of any holder thereof.


 


 







 


 


 

 


 


 


”Borrower”


 


Aura Systems, Inc.

















____________________


Melvin Gagerman


Chief Executive Officer







 


Dated: January 13, 2012
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 3.93



                        SIXTH AMENDMENT TO THE BYLAWS OF
                INTEGRATED SPECIALISTS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

1.   Chapter 3, Section 300(a) entitled "Officer and Directors" is amended by
deleting the same in its entirety and substituting in lieu thereof:

     "Section 300. Officers and Directors.

     (a)  The officers of the corporation are the President or Chief Executive
Officer, one or more Vice Presidents, the Secretary, the Treasurer and/or the
Chief Financial Officer, and the Chairman of the Board; provided, however, that
the Board of Directors shall not be required to elect any officer that is not
required to be elected pursuant to the corporation law of the State of
California."

2.   Chapter 5, Section 502, entitled "Written Ballot of Shareholders" is
amended by deleting the same in its entirety and substituting in lieu thereof:

     "Section 502. Reserved"

3.   Chapter 5, Section 506(b), entitled "Record Date" is amended by deleting
the same in its entirety and substituting in lieu thereof:

     "Section 506. Record Date.

     (b) Reserved."

4.   Chapter 5, Section 514, entitled "Unanimous written consent of
shareholders" is amended by deleting the same in its entirety and substituting
in lieu thereof:

     "514.     Written consent of shareholders. Subject to any applicable
requirements of the corporation law, any action which may be taken by the
shareholders at any annual or special meeting may be taken without a meeting
and without prior notice if a consent in writing, setting forth the action so
taken, shall be signed by the shareholders of outstanding shares having not
less than the minimum

           [THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.]


                                  page 1 of 2
<PAGE>
number of votes that would be necessary to authorize or take such action at a
meeting at which all shares entitled to vote thereon were present and voted."


                            CERTIFICATE BY SECRETARY

I DO HEREBY CERTIFY AS FOLLOWS:

     That I am the duly elected, qualified, and acting Secretary of Integrated
Specialists Management Services, Inc., and that the foregoing Sixth
Amendment to the Bylaws of Integrated Specialists Management Services, Inc. was
approved by the Board of Directors on July 30, 2001.


                                             /s/ [ILLEGIBLE]
                                             ----------------------------
                                             Secretary





                                  Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> BD
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FORM CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION, CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS,
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN PARTNERS' CAPITAL AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 66464892
<SECURITIES-RESALE>                                  0
<SECURITIES-BORROWED>                                0
<INSTRUMENTS-OWNED>                          164035194
<PP&E>                                               0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               230500086
<SHORT-TERM>                                   4092953
<PAYABLES>                                           0
<REPOS-SOLD>                                         0
<SECURITIES-LOANED>                                  0
<INSTRUMENTS-SOLD>                                   0
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   226407133
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 230500086
<TRADING-REVENUE>                              8576034
<INTEREST-DIVIDENDS>                           2773678
<COMMISSIONS>                                  4400530
<INVESTMENT-BANKING-REVENUES>                        0
<FEE-REVENUE>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<COMPENSATION>                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                5970839
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     5970839
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   5970839
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     3.48
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     3.48
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 21

Subsidiaries of the Company                     Jurisdiction of Incorporation

Net2Phone Global Services, L.L.C.               Delaware
Net2Phone Cable Telephony, L.L.C.               Delaware
Net2Phone Global Servicos de Comunicacoes       Madeira, Portugal
Sprewell Consultadorio e Projectos, Lda         Madeira, Portugal
Net2Phon MEA Ltd.                               Israel
VoIP Technology Holdings, LLC                   Delaware
Net2Phone, B.V.                                 Netherlands
Net2Phone America do Sul Comunicacoes Ltda      Brazil
Net2Phone do Brasil Comunicacoes Ltda           Brazil
**Exhibit
      32.1**





**iDNA,
      INC.**


**CERTIFICATION
      OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER**


**PURSUANT
      TO RULE 13a-14(b) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934**


**AND
      18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





I,
      James
      J. McNamara, Chief Executive Officer of iDNA, Inc., a Delaware corporation
      (the
“Registrant”), in connection with the Registrant’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
      for the period ended October 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), do hereby represent, warrant and
      certify ,
      in
      compliance with Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18
      U.S.C Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my
      knowledge:





(1)
      The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





(2)
      The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Registrant.








/s/
                James J. McNamaraName:
                James J. McNamaraTitle:
                Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer(principal
                executive officer)Date:
            December
                14, 2007




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
      authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
      in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
      by Section 906, has been provided to iDNA, Inc. and will be retained by iDNA,
      Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Kenneth A. Shewer, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Futures Strategic Trust for the period July 1, 2008 to September 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |                                                                                                                                     
|--------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Kenneth A. Shewer
|Name:                 |  | Kenneth A. Shewer                                                                                                                   
|Title:                |  | Co-Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)Preferred Investment Solutions Corp.,Managing Owner ofFutures Strategic Trust
|                      | 
|Date:                 |  | November 12, 2008
#### Bradley COOPER; Todd Labak, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. THORATEC CORPORATION; Gerhard F. Burbach; Taylor C. Harris; David V. Smith, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-17369

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted September 14, 2017—San Francisco, California

Filed October 04, 2017

Patrick M. Dahlstrom, Leigh M. Han-delman Smollar, Pomerantz LLP, Chicago, IL, Lionel Z. Glancy, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, Robert Vincent Prongay, Esquire, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esquire, Pomerantz LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Patrick Edward Gibbs, Cooley LLP, Palo Alto, CA, Amanda Betsch, Colleen Carlton Smith, Latham *&*Watkins, LLP, San Diego, CA, Katherine Ann Rykken, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: KOZINSKI and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges, and ARTERTON,* District Judge.

*

 The Honorable Janet Bond Arterton, United States District Judge for the District of Connecticut, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

“[A] statement is misleading if it would give a reasonable investor the impression of a state of affairs that differs in a material way from the one that actually exists.” In re Cutera Sec. Litig., 610 F.3d 1103, 1109 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted), During the class period, Thoratec received data on Heart-Mate II thrombosis events that strongly suggested thrombosis rates were significantly higher than initially advertised. The company’s affirmative statements during the class period downplayed this increase. Appellants have accordingly alleged, with sufficient specificity to survive appellees’ motion to dismiss, that Thoratec’s statements were misleading.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Rodolfo PERDOMO-RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.

No. 16-16906 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(July 5, 2017)

Antonio G. Revilla, Revilla Law Firm, PA, Miami, FL, for Petitioner

Anthony W. Norwood, Hillel Ryder Smith, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Nicole Guzman, DHS, Office of Chief Counsel, Orlando, FL, OIL, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent

Before HULL, WILSON and WILLIAM PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Rodolfo Perdomo-Rodriguez, a native and citizen of Cuba, petitions for review of an order affirming the denial of his application to suspend his deportation. Perdo-mo challenges the determination that he is ineligible for suspension of deportation and the decision to grant his motion to *sua sponte*reopen his exclusion proceedings. We deny in part and dismiss in part Per-domo’s petition.

Perdomo is ineligible for suspension of deportation. Although Perdomo was paroled into the United States and, after being ordered excluded, was reparoled, his parole was never considered an admission to this country. Parole “allowed [Perdomo] into the country but [he] remain[ed] constructively at the border, seeking admission and subject to exclusion proceedings.” *See Assa’ad v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,*332 F.3d 1321, 1338 (11th Cir. 2003); *see also Leng May Ma v. Barber,*357 U.S. 185, 190, 78 S.Ct. 1072, 2 L.Ed.2d 1246 (1958) ("parole ... is simply a device through which needless confinement is avoided while administrative proceedings are conducted” and “was never intended to affect an alien’s status”). To qualify for suspension of deportation, Perdomo had to have been “physically present” in the United States for a continuous period. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1254 (repealed 1996). Because Perdomo never made an “entry” to this country, he was excluded instead of deported. *See Landon v. Plasencia,*459 U.S. 21, 25, 103 S.Ct. 321, 74 L.Ed.2d 21 (1982). As “an alien properly in exclusion proceedings^ Perdomo was] not entitled to apply for suspension of deportation, despite being present in the United States on parole for an extensive period of time.” *Matter of Torres,*19 I. & N. Dec. 371, 373 (BIA 1986). We deny that part of Perdomo’s petition challenging the denial of his application for suspension of deportation.

We lack jurisdiction to review the decision to reopen Perdomo’s exclusion proceedings. Perdomo concedes that he failed to challenge that ruling in his appeal to the Board. “We lack jurisdiction to consider a claim raised in a petition for review unless the petitioner has exhausted his administrative remedies with respect thereto.” *Amaya-Artunduaga v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,*463 F.3d 1247, 1250 (11th Cir. 2006). We dismiss this part of Perdomo’s petition.

PETITION DENIED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART,
#### The People, Resp’ts, v. Stephen Tower, App’lt.

Case stands over to enable respondent to obtain correction of the appeal hook.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A19I0120. TAMBERCON, LLC v. JACQUELINE BOSBY et al.

Upon review of this application for interlocutory appeal, it is hereby

GRANTED. Applicant Tambercon, LLC shall have ten days from the date of this

order to file a notice of appeal in the trial court. If Tambercon, LLC has already filed

a timely notice of appeal from the order at issue here, it need not file a second notice. 

The clerk of the trial court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record

transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

December 17, 2018

12/17/2018
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Guillermo BARRETO-ORTIZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-50452

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted November 16, 2016 *

Filed November 21, 2016

Michael Emerson Lasater, Esquire, U.S. Attorney, Benjamin Holley, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. .Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Guillermo Barreto-Ortiz, 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 **

Guillermo Barreto-Ortiz appeals 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 affirm.

The government seeks the dismissal of this appeal as untimely. Because Barreto-Ortiz is a pro se prisoner, his notice of appeal (“NOA”) is deemed filed when it was delivered to prison authorities for forwarding to the court. *See*Fed. R. App. P. *9434(c)(1). The record reflects, and the government does not dispute, that Barreto-Ortiz’s NOA was postmarked on October 15, 2015. Barreto-Ortiz’s NOA must, therefore, have been delivered to prison officials no later than that date. Because judgment was entered on October 1, 2015, his NOA was thus timely filed. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A)®, (c)(1).

Barreto-Ortiz contends that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion for a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. The district court acted within its discretion when it denied Barreto-Ortiz a sentence reduction based on its determination that he posed a threat to the public in light of the nature of the offense. *See*U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n.1(B); *United States v. Lightfoot,*626 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2010).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Samuel Gordon LAVERDURE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-30197

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 11, 2017 *

Filed April 20, 2017

Matthew F. Duggan, Assistant U.S, Attorney, USSP — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Spokane, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Daniel Rubin, FPDWA — Federal Public Defender’s Office (Eastern WA & ID), Spokane, WA, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Samuel Gordon Laverdure appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 8-month custodial sentence and 16-month supervised release term imposed following revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

*485Laverdure contends that his supervised release term is substantively unreasonable in light of his unwillingness to comply with the terms of supervised release. He argues that the district court should have imposed a longer custodial sentence with no supervised release to follow. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Laverdure’s sentence. *See Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The custodial sentence and term of supervised release are substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including the need to protect the public. *See Gall,*552 U.S. at 51,128 S.Ct. 586. Furthermore, contrary to Laverdure’s contention, the record reflects that the district court considered his argument that no further term of supervised release should be imposed.

AFFIRMED.

**

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

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 34 (Wednesday, February 20, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 11809]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-03770]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2012-0758; FRL 9781-6]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of 
Missouri; Restriction of Emission of Particulate Matter From Industrial 
Processes

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA proposes to approve the State Implementation Plan (SIP) 
revision submitted by the state of Missouri on March 17, 2011. This 
revision proposes to amend the rule restricting emissions of 
particulate matter from industrial sources by providing an alternative 
compliance method for wet corn milling drying operations. The revision 
to Missouri's rule does not have an adverse affect on air quality. 
EPA's approval of this SIP revision is being done in accordance with 
the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be received in writing by 
March 22, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2012-0758, by mail to Amy Bhesania, Environmental Protection 
Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, 
Lenexa, Kansas 66219. Comments may also be submitted electronically or 
through hand delivery/courier by following the detailed instructions in 
the ADDRESSES section of the direct final rule located in the rules 
section of this Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Bhesania at (913) 551-7147, or by 
email at bhesania.amy@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the final rules section of the Federal 
Register, EPA is approving the state's SIP revision as a direct final 
rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a 
noncontroversial revision amendment and anticipates no relevant adverse 
comments to this action. A detailed rationale for the approval is set 
forth in the direct final rule. If no relevant adverse comments are 
received in response to this action, no further activity is 
contemplated in relation to this action. If EPA receives relevant 
adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all 
public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule 
based on this proposed action. EPA will not institute a second comment 
period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting on this 
action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives 
adverse comment on part of this rule and if that part can be severed 
from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those parts of 
the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. For additional 
information, see the direct final rule which is located in the rules 
section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: February 5, 2013.
Karl Brooks,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
[FR Doc. 2013-03770 Filed 2-19-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
ex10-03.htm




Exhibit 10.03

















 




  





1











  









 




  





2











  









 




  





3











  









 




  





4











  









 



5