alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ex105.htm



Exhibit 10.5


MAGNOLIA SOLAR CORPORATION.


54 Cummings Park


Suite 316


Woburn, MA 01801


 


January ___, 2014







Re:           Magnolia Solar Corporation







Ladies and Gentlemen:







Reference is made to that certain letter dated December ___, 2013 from Magnolia Solar Corporation (the “Company”), a copy of which is attached hereto (the “December Letter”). This letter hereby supplements the December Letter. Any undefined capitalized terms used herein shall bear such meaning as ascribed to them in the December Letter.







1.          Effective as of the date of the December Letter, the holder of the Amended Warrant (the “Holder”) and the Company hereby agree as follows: (i) the Expiration Date of the Amended Warrant, as such term is defined therein, is extended to December 31, 2016, and (iii) except as set forth herein, all other terms and conditions of the Amended Warrant shall remain unamended and in full force and effect.







2.          The Holder hereby waives any adjustment under Section 5 of the Amended Warrant that (i) may arise under the provisions of Section 1 herein, and/or (ii) may arise as a result of the extension of the term of any Other Warrant.







Upon the mutual execution of this agreement, please affix this agreement to the Amended Warrant held by the undersigned.


 



	
 

	
Very truly yours,


 


  


MAGNOLIA SOLAR CORPORATION


	  	 
	
 

	 	 
	
 

	By: Dr. Ashok K. Sood
	
 

	Title: President and Chief Executive Officer















Agreed and Accepted


as of the date hereof:




 



	
 

	
  







By:


Title:
<PAGE>   1


EXHIBIT 11 - STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                        -------------------------------------------------
                                           Three Months Ended        Six Months Ended
                                               December 31,             December 31,
                                        -------------------------------------------------
                                           1997         1996         1997         1996
                                        -------------------------------------------------
<S>                                      <C>          <C>          <C>          <C>      
BASIC:

Average shares outstanding               7,820,635    7,126,444    7,802,330    6,674,737
                                        ==========   ==========   ==========   ==========
Net income                              $1,405,000   $2,476,000   $2,043,000   $2,963,000
                                        ==========   ==========   ==========   ==========
Per share amount                        $      .18   $      .35   $      .26   $      .44
                                        ==========   ==========   ==========   ==========

DILUTED:

Average shares outstanding               7,820,635    7,126,444    7,802,330    6,674,737

         Net effect of dilutive stock
         options and warrants              311,671      199,647      284,045      234,594
                                        ----------   ----------   ----------   ----------
                  TOTAL                  8,132,306    7,326,091    8,086,375    6,909,331
                                        ==========   ==========   ==========   ==========
Net income                              $1,405,000   $2,476,000   $2,043,000   $2,963,000
                                        ==========   ==========   ==========   ==========
Per share amount                        $      .17   $      .34   $      .25   $      .43
                                        ==========   ==========   ==========   ==========
</TABLE>



                                       21
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 44 (Thursday, March 6, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10290-10291]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5514]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
[NM-070-1430-01; NMNM039649/NMNM96454, NMNM22493/NMNM97415]


Notice of Realty Action; Recreation and Public Purpose (R&PP) Act

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: R&PP transfer of title and change of use located in San Juan 
County, New Mexico.

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

SUMMARY: The following described public land are classified 
(previously) as being suitable for lease/conveyance under the 
provisions of the R&PP Act, as amended (43 U.S.C. 869 et seq.). An 
assignment from the City of Farmington to the Farmington Municipal 
School District #5, with a change of use taking place for the following 
lands.

New Mexico Principal Meridian

T. 30 N., R. 13 W.,
    Sec 25, S\1/2\SW\1/4\NE\1/4\SW\1/4\, SW\1/4\SE\1/4\NE\1/4\SW\1/
4\,

[[Page 10291]]

S\1/2\SE\1/4\SE\1/4\NE\1/4\SW\1/4\, S\1/2\NE\1/4\SW\1/4\NE\1/4\SW\1/
4\, S\1/2\NW\1/4\SE\1/4\NE\1/4\SW\1/4\, NE\1/4\SW\1/4\SE\1/4\, W\1/
2\NE\1/4\SW\1/4\SE\1/4\, NW\1/4\SE\1/4\SW\1/4\SE\1/4\, N\1/2\SW\1/
4\SE\1/4\SW\1/4\SE\1/4\, N\1/2\S\1/2\SW\1/4\SW\1/4\SE\1/4\, N\1/
2\SW\1/4\SW\1/4\SE\1/4\.

    Containing 37.50 acres, more or less.

    A transfer of title from the Farmington Municipal School District 
#5 to the City of Farmington, with a change of use taking place for the 
following lands.

New Mexico Principal Meridian

T. 30 N., R. 13 W.,
    Sec. 25, SW\1/4\.

    Containing 40 acres, more or less.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Information related to this action, including the environmental 
assessment, is available for review at the Bureau of Land Management, 
Farmington District Office, 1235 La Plata Highway, Farmington, NM 
87401.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Publication of this notice is to provide 
public notification that this transfer of title and change of use is 
being considered. The original land classifications remain the same.

    Dated: February 28, 1997.
Joel E. Farrell,
Assistant District Manager for Lands and Renewable Resources.
[FR Doc. 97-5514 Filed 3-5-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-FB-M
Exhibit
31.1



CERTIFICATION
BY PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER



I,
Lishan Aklog, M.D., certify that:



|1. | I
    have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 10-K of PAVmed Inc.;                                                                                                                                                                                                                            
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       
|2. | Based
    on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary
    to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect
    to the period covered by this report;



|Date:
    April 30, 2018 | By: | /s/
    Lishan Aklog, M.D.            
|------------------------ | --- | --------------------------------------
|                         |     | Lishan
    Aklog, M.D.                
|                         |     | Chairman
    of the Board of Directors
|                         |     | Chief
    Executive Officer           
|                         |     | (Principal
    Executive Officer)
# C_2021098EN.01003301.xml

| 22.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 98/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 98/33

---

Action brought on 1 February 2021 — Rotondaro v EUIPO — Pollini (COLLINI)

(Case T-69/21)

(2021/C 98/37)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Carmine Rotondaro (Monaco, Monaco) (represented by: M. Locatelli, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Pollini SpA (Gatteo, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark COLLINI — Application for registration No 15 841 091

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 December 2020 in Case R 2518/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | uphold the decision of the Opposition Division and declare that the mark COLLINI is registrable as an EU trade mark in respect of all of the goods in Classes 18 and 25 as set out in application for registration No 15 841 091; |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold the decision of the Opposition Division and declare that the mark COLLINI is registrable as an EU trade mark in respect of all of the goods in Classes 18 and 25 as set out in application for registration No 15 841 091;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of the Instructions adopted by the Executive Director of EUIPO on 22 September 2017 (Decision No EX-17-1); |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the Instructions adopted by the Executive Director of EUIPO on 22 September 2017 (Decision No EX-17-1);

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8499 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8499

   To amend the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 to permit the use of 
      benefits to purchase diapering supplies for small children.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 1, 2020

  Ms. Speier (for herself, Mr. San Nicolas, Mr. Sires, and Mr. Cohen) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                              Agriculture

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 to permit the use of 
      benefits to purchase diapering supplies for small children.

    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 ``SNAP for Infant Care Act of 2020''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS.

    Section 3 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2012) is 
amended--
            (1) by inserting after subsection (g) the following:
    ``(g-1) Diapering Supplies.--The term `diapering supplies' includes 
diapers, diaper wipes, diaper cream, and related items necessary for 
safe diapering.'', and
            (2) in subsection (k) by inserting ``diapering supplies for 
        a child not more that 3 years of age,'' after ``of this 
        subsection,''.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    This Act, and the amendments made by this Act, shall take effect on 
the 1st day of the 1st month that begins not less than 180 days after 
the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### Dedrick Germond SMITH, Petitioner-Appellant v. Bonita MOSLEY, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution Yazoo City, Respondent-Appellee

No. 16-60829 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed February 28, 2018

Dedrick Germond Smith, Pro Se

Samuel Lynn Murray, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Mississippi, Jackson, MS, for Respondent-Appellee

Before REAVLEY, PRADO, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Dedrick Germond Smith, federal prisoner # 18526-001, was convicted in the Northern District of Alabama on one count of murdering, and aiding and abetting the *374murder of, a DEA agent engaged in the performance of his official duties. Smith appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging that conviction.

We review the dismissal of Smith’s § 2241 petition de novo. *See Pack v. Yusuff,*218 F.3d 448, 451 (5th Cir. 2000). Smith has not shown that Eleventh Circuit precedent foreclosed his claim under *Rosemond v. United States,*— U.S.—, 134 S.Ct. 1240, 188 L.Ed.2d 248 (2014), at the time of his trial, direct appeal, or first 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. *See Garland v. Roy,*615 F.3d 391, 397-98 (5th Cir. 2010); *United States v. Thomas,*987 F.2d 697, 702 (11th Cir. 1993); *United States v. Hamblin,*911 F.2d 551, 557-58 (11th Cir. 1990). Accordingly, he has not demonstrated that the district court erred in determining that he could not proceed under § 2241 because he did not meet the requirements of the savings clause under § 2255(e). *See Reyes-Requena v. United States,*243 F.3d 893, 901, 904 (5th Cir. 2001). Because Smith was convicted in the Northern District of Alabama, the district court in the Southern District of Mississippi lacked jurisdiction to consider his claim under § 2255. *See Pack,*218 F.3d at 451-52.

While Smith also argues that his claim should be considered in light of *Mathis v. United States,*— U.S. —, 136 S.Ct. 2243, 195 L.Ed.2d 604 (2016), Smith did not present any argument citing *Mathis*until his notice of appeal. We generally will not consider claims that were not properly presented in the district court. *See Yohey v. Collins,*985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993). In any event, *Mathis*does not help Smith’s challenge to his conviction because *Mathis*concerned the use of the categorical approach for a sentence enhancement and did not change the law regarding the elements required to prove a defendant’s guilt or innocence of a crime. *See Mathis,*136 S.Ct. at 2247-48. Smith’s claim that his charges under 18 U.S.C. § 1111 and 18 U.S.C. § 1114 were multiplicitous is not considered because it is raised for the first time in his reply brief. *See Yohey,*985 F.2d at 225.

AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
#### COM. v. TIBURCIO, M.

1553 MDA 2016

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

09/19/2017

CP-06-CR-0004600-2015 (Berks)

Affirmed
EX-10.8(b)



 Exhibit 10.8(b) 

June 1, 2013 
 Blackwater Capital Management, LLC 

36 Cattano Avenue 
 Suite 601 

Morristown, N.J. 07960 
 Attention: Mr. Andy Silwanowicz

  

	 	Re:	Management Agreement Renewals 

 Dear Mr. Silwanowicz: 

We are writing with respect to your management agreements concerning the commodity pools to which reference is made below (the “Management
Agreements”). We are extending the term of the Management Agreements through June 30, 2014 and all other provisions of the Management Agreements will remain unchanged. 

 

	 	•	 	Emerging CTA Portfolio L.P. 

  

	 	•	 	Global Diversified Futures Fund L.P. 

  

	 	•	 	Blackwater Master Fund L.P. 

  

	 	•	 	MSSB Spectrum Technical L.P. 

 Please acknowledge receipt of this modification by signing one copy of this
letter and returning it to the attention of Mr. Damian George at the address above or fax to 212-296-6868. If you have any questions I can be reached at 212-296-1292. 
  

			
	Very truly yours,
	
	CERES MANAGED FUTURES LLC
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Damian George

		 	 Damian George

		 	Chief Financial Officer & Director

  

			
	BLACKWATER CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LLC
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Andrew Silwanowicz



			
		
	Print Name:	 	 Andrew Silwanowicz

	  
 DG/sr
# C_2021088EN.01003601.xml

| 15.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 88/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/36

---

Action brought on 20 January 2021 — Apple v EUIPO — Swatch (THINK DIFFERENT)

(Case T-27/21)

(2021/C 88/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Apple Inc. (Cupertino, California, United States) (represented by: I. Junkar, I. Fowler, M. Petersenn and B. Lüthge, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Swatch AG (Biel, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark THINK DIFFERENT — European Union trade mark No 845 461

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 November 2020 in Case R 2012/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant and by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal if it joins as intervener. |
| --- | --- |

—

order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant and by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal if it joins as intervener.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 18 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 18 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
<PAGE>   1

EXHIBIT 11--STATEMENT RE:  COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                    Three Months Ended
                                                         June 30,
                                                  ----------------------
                                                     1996        1995
                                                  ----------  ----------
<S>                                               <C>         <C>
PRIMARY

    Average shares outstanding                     5,418,525   5,355,891
    Net effect of dilutive stock
      options and warrants--based
      on the treasury stock method
      using average market price                     344,844     200,992
                                                  ----------  ----------
                               TOTAL               5,763,369   5,556,883
                                                  ==========  ==========

    Net income                                    $  853,000  $  507,000
                                                  ==========  ==========
    Per share amount                              $      .15  $      .09
                                                  ==========  ==========
FULLY DILUTED

    Average shares outstanding                     5,418,525   5,355,891
    Net effect of dilutive stock
      options and warrants--based
      on the treasury stock method
      using the higher of ending
      or average market price                        361,796     200,992
                                                  ----------  ----------
                               TOTAL               5,780,321   5,556,883
                                                  ==========  ==========

    Net income                                    $  853,000  $  507,000
                                                  ==========  ==========
    Per share amount                              $      .15  $      .09
                                                  ==========  ==========
</TABLE>

The number of shares and per share amounts for the three months ended June 30,
1995 have been retroactively adjusted to reflect the Company's 1 for 2 reverse
stock split, effected March 21, 1996.


                                     -19-
EXHIBIT 99.4
                                  ------------

     Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The  undersigned,  who  is  the  Chief  Financial  Officer  of  International
Microcomputer  Software,  Inc.  (the  "Company"),  hereby certifies that (i) the
Quarterly  Report  on Form 10-QSB/A for three and nine-month periods ended March
31,  2002,  as  filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the "Annual Report"), to which this Certification is an Exhibit, fully complies
with the applicable requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Exchange Act;
and  (ii) the information contained in this Quarterly Report fairly presents, in
all  material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.


Dated:  December  27,  2002

By:  /s/  William  J.  Bush
William  J.  Bush
Chief  Financial  Officer  (Principal  Accounting  Officer)


                                       46


<PAGE>
#### REED ASSOCIATES v. TEKTON DEVELOPMENT CORP.

464 EDA 2017

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

09/22/2017

2014-11438

(Chester)

Affirmed/Remanded
No. 11-1537.

#### Kernell *v.*United States.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
) 

### Regulatory Evaluation 

# Fflfl**~** c2tJI5=-2Lf03 e,oi5
-NM-OU
- 4j) Docket No.**FAA.:2014-07~** Directorate Identifier: 

### 2014 NM-136-AO

lf)"oU make 

### ch(mges to the 

### volues in the tahle 

### be low, _vou 

### rnusl ensure !hi! 

### totals updati!**according~v.** ll 

### tlwv do no t. click 

### (or T a b) i nto and then out oft he changed cell

. Estimated Costs: Action Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine , (e.g., Inspection , propeller, appliance) Work-hours Labor Parts Cost Total Costs Number of Total Cost replacement) (include cost (labor + 

### u.s. for U.S. Fleet Do not include onco ndition costs here access, testing , (@$85 /h parts) Registered and close-up) our) Pro!iJlcts 

### Inspection 4.0 

## ....m""**7~** '

'•



### '

The known number of products in compliance: Total Costs of compliance for 

### U.S. fleet: $58,820 Costs covered under wan·anty 

### (if 

### known) $ On-Condition Costs: Action Work-hours Labor cost Parts Cost Cost per Product (e

.g ., Inspection , (inc lud e access , ( @ $85 /hour)

replacement) testing , and closeup) '



### Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use thisfield to exp lain anything in the Estimated Costs table that was assumed or might not be obvious. This .field can also be used to exp lain warranty costs):

### Executive Order 12866: Could the AD be considered a " significant regulatory action " ?

# ~ YES* 

## D NO 

### [gl *Explanation: 

### DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures: I I AD . "fi ? • s t 1e s1gm Icant. , _____ YES* 

## D NO 

### [gl *Explanation: 

### Regulatory Flexibility Act: Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for
e ither a Yes or No answer.

# ~ YES 

# D NO 

### [gl Explanation: 

### Intrastate Aviation in Alaska: Thi s AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska

. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode oftransp011ation?

# · YES* 

## D NO 

### [gl *Explanation: