alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
amendmen_loanagreement.htm - Generated by SEC Publisher for SEC Filing



  



AMENDMENT TO LOAN AGREEMENT


  


Dated August 22, 2017


 


 


This AMENDMENT to Loan Agreement (the “Amendment to Loan Agreement”) has been made by and between Anatoliy Kanev, sole officer and director of Unicobe Corp. (the “Mr. Kanev”) and Unicobe Corp. (the “Company”), whose address is Serdike 17A, ap. 37, Sofia, Bulgaria, 1000.


 


The purpose of the Amendment to Loan Agreement: The Company and Mr. Kanev have entered into that certain Loan Agreement dated May 21, 2014 (the “Loan Agreement). The Company requests an extension of funds for proceeding business operations and Mr. Kanev has agreed to loan to the Company additional $30,000 US DOLLARS (the “Additional Loan”) on the terms and conditions written below. Here the parties have agreed to the following:


 




	

   1.  
	

   In accordance to this Amendment to Loan Agreement Mr. Kanev has agreed to loan to the Company the Additional Loan for purposes permitted in the Loan Agreement on any demand of the Company that does not exceed the sum limit of Thirty Thousand Dollars ($30,000) starting the date this Amendment has been signed;

	

   2.  
	

   The Company will request the Loan if the Company fails to sell more than 50% of total shares offering; The Company will request to loan the minimum amount required for its further operations and development, to wit $30,000 or less, depending on the percentage of shares offering sold;





 




	

   3.  
	

   The Additional Loan is non-interest bearing, secured and payable upon demand;





 




	

   4.  
	

   The Additional Loan from Mr. Kanev to the Company is subject to the same terms and conditions as the Loan Agreement;





 




	

   5.  
	

   The Additional Loan is available for the Company until the Company starts generating revenues to remain operational and pay off the bills.





 


Repayments of the Loan:


 


The repayment of the Additional Loan to Mr. Kanev by the Company will start when the Company will earn sufficient revenues to cover all liabilities and expenses. The Company is obliged to repay Mr. Kanev the amount of funds loaned by the Company from Mr. Kanev for the period of time since inception of the Company till the date of the last loan.


 


In witness thereof the parties have agreed to the terms and conditions written above as of August 22, 2017.


 


Authorized signature of:


 


Anatoliy Kanev/ Unicobe Corp.                       /s/Anatoliy Kanev
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 351 Agreed to House (ATH)]

  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 351

Directing the Clerk of the House of Representatives to make a technical 
          correction in the enrollment of the bill H.R. 3910.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 15, 1998

  Mr. McHale submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
                        considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Directing the Clerk of the House of Representatives to make a technical 
          correction in the enrollment of the bill H.R. 3910.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That, in the enrollment of the bill (H.R. 3910) to authorize the 
Automobile National Heritage Area in the State of Michigan, and for 
other purposes, the Clerk of the House of Representatives shall strike 
section 406 and insert the following new section 406:

SEC. 406. TERMINATION OF CORRIDOR COMMISSION.

    Section 9(a) of such Act (102 Stat. 4556) is amended by striking 
``on the day occurring 5 years after the date of the enactment of this 
Act'' and inserting ``on November 18, 2003''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.1


      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

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and
(b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), I, William W.
Burnham, Chairman of the Board, President, Chief Executive Officer, and Acting
Chief Financial Officer, of Trudy Corporation do hereby certify, to the best of
my knowledge that:

     1)   The Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended
          December 31, 2004 being filed with the Securities and Exchange
          Commission (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 Company.

This Certification accompanies this Form 10-QSB as an exhibit, but shall not be
deemed as having been filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 or as a separate disclosure document of the Company or the
certifying officer.


                                              /s/ WILLIAM W. BURNHAM
                                              ------------------------------
Date: April 6, 2005                           William W. Burnham
                                              Chairman of the Board, President,
                                              Chief Executive Officer, and
                                              Acting Chief Financial Officer


                                       31
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated balance sheet and the consolidated statement of operations
(unaudited).

</LEGEND>

<CIK>                                          0000815098
<NAME>                                  Trudy Corporation
<MULTIPLIER>                                            1
<CURRENCY>                                            USD


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                       6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             MAR-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                                APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                  SEP-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                         1
<CASH>                                             19,874
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     695,695
<ALLOWANCES>                                       33,363
<INVENTORY>                                     1,001,485
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                1,674,793
<PP&E>                                            182,633
<DEPRECIATION>                                    101,248
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  2,008,228
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           3,460,369
<BONDS>                                           189,124
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                           35,319
<OTHER-SE>                                    (1,641,265)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    2,008,228
<SALES>                                           620,734
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  620,734
<CGS>                                             608,619
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     446,488
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (24,442)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 81,836
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (491,767)
<INCOME-TAX>                                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (491,767)
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (491,767)
<EPS-BASIC>                                         (.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (.00)


</TABLE>
IV

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 76

Expressing the sense of the Congress that any capital gains exclusion on

the transfer of a primary residence enacted by the 105th Congress

should take effect on January 1, 1997.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 7, 1997

Mr. SHERMAN (for himself, Mr. BOUCHER, Mr. FROST, and Mrs. CLAYTON)

submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Congress that any capital gains

exclusion on the transfer of a primary residence enacted

by the 105th Congress should take effect on January

1, 1997.

Whereas the President has proposed eliminating the capital

gains tax on the first $500,000 of gains realized upon the

sale of the primary residence;

Whereas this proposal has received significant support from

the American people and from Members of Congress;

Whereas those considering the transfer of a primary residence at a gain will wish to time such transfer so as to

benefit from any capital gains reduction adopted by Congress;
2

•HCON 76 IH

Whereas the President’s proposal has an effective date of

January 1, 1997, and a similar proposal by former Senate Majority Leader Robert Dole also contained a January 1, 1997, effective date; and

Whereas the Joint Committee on Taxation has prepared a

description of the revenue provisions contained in the

President’s fiscal year 1998 budget proposal which describes in detail the effective date provisions of the President’s proposal regarding capital gains on the sale of a

primary residence: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that any

3 exclusion from taxation of capital gains on the sale of a

4 primary residence enacted during the 105th Congress

5 should take effect on January 1, 1997.

Æ
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 136 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.J. Res.136

                       One Hundred Fifth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
the twenty-seventh day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-
                                  eight

                            Joint Resolution

 
 Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 1999, and 
                           for other purposes.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That section 106(c) of Public 
Law 105-240 is further amended by striking ``October 16, 1998'' and 
inserting in lieu thereof ``October 20, 1998''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
2006 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

3-17-2006

In Re: Almahdi

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 05-5045

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2006 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"In Re: Almahdi " (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 1414.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/1414
HPS-19 (December 2005) NOT PRECEDENTIAL 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

____________

No. 05-5045

____________

 

IN RE: JAMALUDDIN ALMAHDI, 

 Petitioner

 

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the

United States District Court for the District of New Jersey

(Related to D.N.J. No. 05-cv-01613)

____________

Submitted Under Rule 21, Fed. R. App. Pro.

December 16, 2005

Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge , WEIS and GARTH, Circuit Judges.

(Filed: March 17, 2006)

____________

PER CURIAM.

Pro se petitioner Jamalud-Din Almahdi, a federal prisoner, seeks a writ of

mandamus to compel the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey to

reach a decision on his Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment filed on May 9, 2005. We

will deny the petition as moot.

In April 2005, Almahdi filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to Bivens v.

Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). The

District Court dismissed the complaint because the defendants were immune from
2

liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 9, 2005, Almahdi filed a Motion to Alter or

Amend Judgment. In September 2005, Almahdi filed a motion to compel the District

Court to answer his previous motion. 

The remedy of mandamus is reserved for the most extraordinary of

circumstances. DeMasi v. Weiss, 669 F.2d 114, 117 (3d Cir. 1982). In order to ensure

that mandamus is sparingly granted, a petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus must

demonstrate that no other adequate means are available to obtain the desired relief and

that the right to issuance of the writ is “clear and indisputable.” Allied Chem. Corp. v.

Daifon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 35 (1980). 

Here, on January 30, 2006, the District Court denied Almahdi’s Motion to

Alter or Amend Judgment. The District Court further denied Almahdi’s motion for an

order to compel. In light of the District Court’s orders, Almahdi’s petition for a writ of

mandamus will be denied as moot.
STEAM ELECTRIC CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE 

EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819 

DCN: SE01025

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT 

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION 

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.
Coffee Holding Co., Inc.
                    Computation of Per Share Earnings (Loss)
                            (Unaudited) Exhibit 11.1

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                               Nine Months Ended          Three Months Ended
                                              2005          2004          2005           2004
                                           -----------   -----------   -----------    -----------
<S>                                        <C>           <C>           <C>            <C>
Net Income (Loss)                          $   552,760   $   612,548   ($  447,875)   ($  125,455)
                                           ===========   ===========   ===========    ===========

BASIC EARNINGS:

Weighted average number of common shares
   outstanding                               4,448,864     3,999,650     5,332,644      3,999,650
                                           ===========   ===========   ===========    ===========

Basic earnings (loss) per common share     $      0.12   $      0.15   ($     0.08)   ($     0.03)
                                           ===========   ===========   ===========    ===========

DILUTED EARNINGS:

Weighted average number of common shares
   outstanding                               4,448,864     3,999,650     5,332,644      3,999,650

Warrants - common stock equivalents             59,893             0             0              0
                                           -----------   -----------   -----------    -----------

Weighted average number of common shares
   outstanding - as adjusted                 4,508,757     3,999,650     5,332,644      3,999,650
                                           ===========   ===========   ===========    ===========

Diluted earnings (loss) per common share   $      0.12   $      0.15   ($     0.08)   ($     0.03)
                                           ===========   ===========   ===========    ===========
</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 292 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 292

    Designating the second Sunday in October of 1996 as ``National 
               Children's Day'', and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 13, 1996

   Mr. Pressler (for himself and Mr. Graham) submitted the following 
    resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
    Designating the second Sunday in October of 1996 as ``National 
               Children's Day'', and for other purposes.

Whereas the people of the United States should celebrate children as the most 
        valuable asset of the Nation;
Whereas the children represent the future, hope, and inspiration of the United 
        States;
Whereas the children of the United States should be allowed to feel that their 
        ideas and dreams will be respected because adults in the United States 
        take time to listen;
Whereas many children of the United States face crises of grave proportions, 
        especially as they enter adolescent years;
Whereas it is important for parents to spend time listening to their children on 
        a daily basis;
Whereas modern societal and economic demands often pull the family apart;
Whereas encouragement should be given to families to set aside a special time 
        for all family members to engage together in family activities;
Whereas adults in the United States should have an opportunity to reminisce on 
        their youth to recapture some of the fresh insight, innocence, and 
        dreams that they may have lost through the years;
Whereas the designation of a day to commemorate the children of the United 
        States will provide an opportunity to emphasize to children the 
        importance of developing an ability to make the choices necessary to 
        distance themselves from impropriety and to contribute to their 
        communities;
Whereas the designation of a day to commemorate the children of the Nation will 
        emphasize to the people of the United States the importance of the role 
        of the child within the family and society;
Whereas the people of the United States should emphasize to children the 
        importance of family life, education, and spiritual qualities; and
Whereas children are the responsibility of all Americans, thus everyone should 
        celebrate the children of the United States, whose questions, laughter, 
        and tears are important to the existence of the United States: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate designates the second Sunday in October 
of 1996 as ``National Children's Day'' and requests that the President 
issue a proclamation calling on the people of the United States to 
observe the day with appropriate ceremonies and activities.
                                 <all>
```
#### Alfredo ROMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Randy BLADES, Warden, Sued in their individual and official capacity and their successors in office; Brian Kingensmith, Sued in their individual and official capacity and their successors in office, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-35575

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*476Submitted January 16, 2018 *

Filed January 19, 2018

Alfredo Roman, Pro Se

Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, 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 **

Alfredo Roman, an Idaho state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 action alleging due process claims arising from a disciplinary hearing. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. *Nordstrom v. Ryan,*762 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Roman’s due process claim regarding the payment of restitution because Roman failed to allege facts sufficient to show that he was not provided with an adequate pre-deprivation hearing under *Mathews v. Eldridge,*424 U.S. 319, 96 S.Ct. 893, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976). *See Shinault v. Hawks,*782 F.3d 1053, 1057 (9th Cir. 2015) (noting that inmate’s account funds are a protected property interest and describing the *Mathews*balancing test to determine “whether a pre-deprivation hearing is required and what specific procedures must be employed at that hearing given the particularities of the deprivation”).

The district court properly dismissed Roman’s due process claims arising from his placement in disciplinary and administrative segregation because Roman failed to allege facts sufficient to show a protected liberty interest or an “atypical and significant hardship.” *Sandin v. Conner,*515 U.S. 472, 483-85, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995) (a prisoner has no protected liberty interest when the sanction imposed neither extends the length of his sentence nor imposes an “atypical and significant hardship”); *Serrano v. Francis,*345 F.3d 1071, 1077-78 (9th Cir. 2003) (due process procedural protections “adhere only when the disciplinary action implicates a protected liberty interest”).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

**

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