alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.2


AMENDMENT ONE


TO


SUBSCRIPTION AGREEMENT


 


This Amendment One to Subscription Agreement
(this “Agreement”) has been executed by and between the subscriber set forth on the signature page hereof
(the “Subscriber”) and Akoustis Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”)
and amends the Subscription Agreement dated May ___ (“Agreement”) between the Subscriber and the Company.


 


The parties agree that the first paragraph
of Section 18 of the Agreement (“Price Protection”) shall be amended and restated in its entirety as follows:


 


	 	
        “Price Protection. If during the
        period from the first Closing of the Offering until the May 1, 2019, the Company shall issue Additional Shares of Common Stock
        (as defined below) for a consideration per share, or with an exercise or conversion price per share, less than the Purchase Price
        (adjusted proportionately (or if it cannot be adjusted proportionately, then equitably)) (the “Lower Price”), the Subscriber
        shall be entitled to receive from the Company (for no additional consideration) additional Shares equal to: (i)(a) the total Purchase
        Price paid pursuant to this Agreement for the Unsold Shares (defined below), divided by (b) Ninety Percent (90%) of the greater
        of (A) the Lower Price, and (B) Five and a Half United States Dollars (US$5.50); minus (ii) the number of Unsold Shares. “Unsold
        Shares” shall mean, as of the time of the closing of the transaction for any issuance of Additional Shares, the total number
        of Shares Subscriber purchased pursuant to this Agreement (the “Purchased Shares”) minus the total number of Purchased
        Shares the Subscriber has, as of that time, sold, assigned, or transferred to a person not affiliated with the Subscriber.”

         



The parties acknowledge and agree that the
second paragraph Section 18 (which begins ““Additional Shares of Common Stock” shall mean...”)
shall remain unchanged by this amendment.


 


 


 


[Signature pages follow on the next
page]






     


     


    

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has duly executed
this Subscription Agreement as of the ____ day of December, 2017.


 


	 	AKOUSTIS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
	 	 	 
	 	By:	 
	 	 	Name:	John T. Kurtzweil
	 	 	Title:	Chief Financial Officer


 


 


[customize signature block below for subscriber(s)] 


 





	SUBSCRIBER (individual)	 	SUBSCRIBER (entity)
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	Signature	 	Name of Entity
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	Print Name	 	Signature
	 	 	 
	 	 	Print Name:  



	Signature (if Joint Tenants or Tenants in Common)	 	Title:  



	 	 	 
	Address of Principal Residence:	 	Address of Executive Offices:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6260

DARRELL SILVERN ROCHESTER, a/k/a Darrell S. Rochester, Petitioner - Appellant,

v. HENRY MCMASTER; CECILIA REYNOLDS, Warden, Kershaw Correctional Institution, Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (8:08-cv-01677-PMD)

Submitted: May 28, 2009 Decided: June 8, 2009

Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Darrell Silvern Rochester, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.PER CURIAM: Darrell Silvern Rochester seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Dir., Dep’t of

Corr. , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v.

Robinson , 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). Accord Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 205 (2007). The district court’s order was entered on December 23, 2008. The notice of appeal was filed, at the earliest, on February 4, 2009. ∗ Because Rochester failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

∗ See Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988).

23 presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
IA

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 35

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution to require that congressional

resolutions setting forth levels of total budget outlays and Federal revenues must be agreed to by two-thirds vote of both Houses of the Congress

if the level of outlays exceeds the level of revenues.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 21, 1997

Mr. SOLOMON introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to

the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution to require that

congressional resolutions setting forth levels of total

budget outlays and Federal revenues must be agreed

to by two-thirds vote of both Houses of the Congress

if the level of outlays exceeds the level of revenues.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two3 thirds of each House concurring therein), That the follow4 ing article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitu5 tion of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents

6 and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by

7 the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States with-
2

•HJ 35 IH

1 in seven years after the date of its submission for ratifica2 tion:

3 ‘‘ARTICLE—

4 ‘‘On the question of agreeing, in either the House of

5 Representatives or the Senate, to a concurrent resolution

6 of the two Houses of the Congress which sets forth an

7 appropriate level of total budget outlays of the Federal

8 Government for a fiscal year and a recommended level of

9 Federal revenues for that fiscal year or of agreeing, in

10 either the House of Representatives or the Senate, to a

11 report of a conference committee on such a concurrent res12 olution, the affirmative vote of two-thirds of Members

13 present and voting (a quorum being present), shall be re14 quired for agreeing to the question, if the appropriate level

15 of total budget outlays set forth in such concurrent resolu16 tion or recommended in such conference report exceeds the

17 recommended level of Federal revenues set forth in such

18 concurrent resolution or recommended in such conference

19 report.’’.

Æ
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-50934

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

LATARSHA ROSHILIA BARNES, also known as Latarsha Barnes,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 6:10-CR-82-1

Before KING, BENAVIDES, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Latarsha Roshilia Barnes appeals the 168-month sentence imposed

following her guilty plea conviction for attempted murder. 

Barnes’s sole argument on appeal is that the district court erred in

determining that her base offense level was 33 pursuant to U.S.S.G.

§ 2A2.1(a)(1). She argues that there are two base offense levels associated with

attempted murder and that it is “impossible to discern which base offense level

to apply.” According to Barnes, because “[t]he application of the two base offense

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

July 14, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

Case: 10-50934 Document: 00511539969 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/14/2011
No. 10-50934

levels is a choice between the same conduct, with identical elements . . . the rule

of lenity should apply.” Review of this issue is for plain error. See United States

v. Price, 516 F.3d 285, 286-87 (5th Cir. 2008).

Section 2A2.1 applies to two offenses: assault with intent to commit

murder and attempted murder. The base offense level under that section is 33

if “the object of the offense would have constituted first degree murder,” and 27

if “otherwise.” §§ 2A2.1(a)(1), (2). Section 2A2.1, comment. (n.1), references the

definition of murder set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 1111. 

Barnes does not dispute that she pleaded guilty to, and was convicted of,

attempted murder. Additionally, she does not dispute that the object of her

offense would have constituted first degree murder under § 2A2.1(a)(1) and

§ 1111. Finally, the record reflects that she acted with the requisite

premeditation under § 1111. Thus, Barnes has failed to establish that the

district court committed any error, plain or otherwise.

AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 10-50934 Document: 00511539969 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/14/2011
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND THE CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         544,000
<SECURITIES>                                   200,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,596,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                    21,000
<INVENTORY>                                    360,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,760,000
<PP&E>                                       2,011,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 688,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,277,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,397,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     6,265,000
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,277,000
<SALES>                                      7,166,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,166,000
<CGS>                                        4,171,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,134,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (24,000)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (123,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (123,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (123,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.04)
        

</TABLE>
Stock Agreement


 


This Stock Agreement (the “Agreement”), dated as of December
15, 2017, confirms our understanding with respect to the issuance of Common Stock of Liberated Syndication Inc. (the “Company”)
to Christopher Spencer (the “Employee”) with respect to the matters set forth herein.


 


The Board of Directors has awarded 1,100,000 shares of the Company’s
common stock (the “Stock”), subject to certain milestones and forfeiture clauses, to the Employee. In an effort to
incentivize the employee, the Board of Directors has set forth the following milestones and forfeiture clauses for these shares
of stock.


 


1. $5.00 per share


When the Company obtains an average of $5.00 per share closing price (adjusted
for stock splits) for any 10 consecutive trading days, the Employee will retain 50% of the stock (550,000 shares), if obtained
within 30 months.


 


2. $7.00 per share


When the Company obtains an average of $7.00 per share closing price (adjusted
for stock splits) for any 10 consecutive trading days, the Employee will retain 50% of the stock (550,000 shares), if obtained
within 36 months.


 


The effect of this grant on the market cap of the Company will NOT be taken
into consideration in attaining the milestone goals for the stock agreement dated April 13, 2017 between Christopher Spencer and
Liberated Syndication Inc.


 


 


ACCEPTED AND AGREED TO:


 


Christopher Spencer


 


 


By:___________________________________________________


Name: Christopher Spencer


 


 


Liberated Syndication Inc.


 


 


By:_____________________________________________________


Name: Greg Smith


Title: Chair of Compensation Committee
EX-31 Rule13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certifications.

 

 

I, Helaine M. Kaplan,certify that:

 

1. I have reviewedthis report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed inrespect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of the COMM2014-CCRE21 Mortgage Trust (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");

 

2. Based on myknowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3. Based on myknowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required tobe provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is includedin the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4. Based on myknowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in this report underItem 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Actperiodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under theservicing agreements in all material respects; and

 

5. All of the reportson assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securitiesand their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance withservicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in thisreport in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except asotherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliancedescribed in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

 

In giving thecertifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me bythe following unaffiliated parties:

 

Midland LoanServices, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer, LNRPartners, LLC, as Special Servicer, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, asTrustee and Certificate Administrator, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association,as Custodian, Park Bridge Lender Services LLC, as Operating Advisor, KeyBankNational Association, as Primary Servicer, Wells Fargo Bank, NationalAssociation, as Primary Servicer for the Loews Miami Beach Hotel Mortgage Loan,Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, as Special Servicer for the Loews Miami BeachHotel Mortgage Loan, Wilmington Trust, National Association, as Trustee for theLoews Miami Beach Hotel Mortgage Loan, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association,as Certificate Administrator for the Loews Miami Beach Hotel Mortgage Loan,Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Custodian for the Loews Miami BeachHotel Mortgage Loan, Situs Holdings, LLC, as Operating Advisor for the LoewsMiami Beach Hotel Mortgage Loan, CoreLogic Commercial Real Estate Services,Inc., as Servicing Function Participant for the Loews Miami Beach HotelMortgage Loan, and National Tax Search, LLC, as Servicing Function Participantfor the Loews Miami Beach Hotel Mortgage Loan.

 

 

 

Dated: March 18, 2019

 

 

/s/ Helaine M. Kaplan

 

 

President

(seniorofficer in charge of securitization of the depositor)
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 65 (Tuesday, April 5, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19723-19724]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-07107]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


Interest Rates

    The Small Business Administration publishes an interest rate called 
the optional ``peg'' rate (13 CFR 120.214) on a quarterly basis. This 
rate is a weighted average cost of money to the government for 
maturities similar to the average SBA direct loan. This rate may be 
used as a base rate for guaranteed fluctuating interest rate SBA loans. 
This rate will be 2.00 percent for the April--June quarter of FY 2022.
    Pursuant to 13 CFR 120.921(b), the maximum legal interest rate for 
any third party lender's commercial loan which funds any portion of the 
cost of a 504 project (see 13 CFR 120.801) shall be 6% over the New 
York Prime rate or, if that exceeds the maximum interest rate permitted 
by the constitution or laws of a given State, the maximum interest rate 
will be the rate permitted

[[Page 19724]]

by the constitution or laws of the given State.

John Wade,
Chief, Secondary Market Division.
[FR Doc. 2022-07107 Filed 4-4-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

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 Quarterly Report of Applied Imaging Corp. (the
Company) on Amendment No. 1 to Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robin Stracey, President, Chief Executive Officer and
Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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; and



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



|                        |  |     |  |                                                        
|----------------------- |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------------------------
|                        |  |    
|Date: February 25, 2005 |  | By: |  | /s/ Robin Stracey                                      
|                        |  |     |  | Robin Stracey                                          
|                        |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer



This certification
accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-21-00013-CR

Ex parte Miguel Macias

FROM THE 167TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

NO. D-1-DC-19-300300, THE HONORABLE P. DAVID WAHLBERG, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Miguel Macias has filed a motion to dismiss his appeal. The motion is 

signed by both appellant and his attorney. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a). We grant the motion and 

dismiss the appeal. See id.

__________________________________________

Melissa Goodwin, Justice

Before Justices Goodwin, Triana, and Kelly

Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion

Filed: February 11, 2021

Do Not Publish
IV

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 251

Expressing the sense of the Congress that a postage stamp should be issued

to commemorate the life of George Washington and his contributions

to the Nation.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 26, 1998

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia (for himself, Mr. MORAN of Virginia), Mr. SCOTT, Mr.

GOODE, Mr. BOUCHER, Mr. SISISKY, Mr. BATEMAN, Mr. WOLF, Mr.

BLILEY, and Mr. GOODLATTE) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Government Reform and

Oversight

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Congress that a postage stamp

should be issued to commemorate the life of George

Washington and his contributions to the Nation.

Whereas 1999 marks the 200th anniversary of the death of

George Washington;

Whereas George Washington’s extraordinary virtue commanded the respect of America’s early leaders, who called

on him to preside over the framing of the Constitution;

Whereas George Washington was an indispensable figure in

the founding of our Nation, and served as our country’s

first commander in chief and President with unparalleled

distinction;
2

•HCON 251 IH

Whereas all Americans remain indebted to George Washington for the liberties we enjoy today;

Whereas the death of George Washington on December 14,

1799, marked the first instance of national mourning in

this country;

Whereas George Washington’s tremendous accomplishments

over the course of a remarkable lifetime are studied and

admired in this Nation and around the world; and

Whereas issuing a postage stamp to honor the life and contributions of George Washington, ‘‘The Father of Our

Country’’, is proper and fitting: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

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

3 (1) a postage stamp should be issued by the

4 United States Postal Service to commemorate the

5 life of George Washington and his contributions to

6 the Nation; and

7 (2) the Citizens’ Stamp Advisory Committee

8 should recommend to the Postmaster General that

9 such a postage stamp be issued.

Æ
TIMOTHY J. FINN

,
Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,
Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 15

- 3210

__________ _________________/

Opinion filed November 10, 2016.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County

. J. Scott Duncan , Judge

.
Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, Lori A. Willner, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee , for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi , Attorney General, David Llanes, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

B.L. THOMAS

, RAY

, and OSTERHAUS

, J J

. , CONCUR.
### ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMIS SION

OF 

### MARYLAND Petitioner, 

### IN THE COURT OFAPPEALS OF 

### MARYLAND

Misc. Docket 

### AG No. * * * rl. ,N. {r rl. * * rF ,1. ,1. *



### of v. 

### ANN O.

### JARRELL Respondent. September Term, 2017 

### ORDER 

### The Court

### of Appeals 

### of Maryland, having consider 

### the Joint petition 

### of the Attorney Grievance Commission and Respondent, Ann O. Jerrell, to place Respondent on Inactive Status by consent pursuantto Maryland 

### Rule 

### l9-736(c),it is this

# _ day 2018; 

### ORDERED, 

### that 

### the Joint Petition be, and

## it is hereby 

### GRANTED, and the Respondent, Ann O.Jarrell, is hereby placed on Inactive Status by consent; and it isfurther, ORDERED, that the 

### Clerk of this Court shall remove the name 

### of Ann O. Jarrell from the register of attorneys in the 

### court and certifu that fact to the

### client protection Fund 

### of the Bar 

### of Maryland and

### all Clerks

### of all

### judicial tribunals 

### in this State 

### in accordance 

### with Maryland 

### Rule t9-761.

Senior Judge 70