alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ex10-27.htm


EXHIBIT 10.27


 


 



FIRST AMENDMENT


TO THE


BIOSIG TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 2012 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN







This FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE BIOSIG TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 2012 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN (this “Amendment”), effective as of September 29, 2013, is made and entered into by BioSig Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”).  Terms used in this Amendment with initial capital letters that are not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the BioSig Technologies, Inc. 2012 Equity Incentive Plan (the “Plan”).







RECITALS







WHEREAS, Section 18 of the Plan provides that the Board of Directors of the Company (the “Board”) may amend the Plan at any time; and







WHEREAS, the Board desires to amend the Plan, to increase the number of shares of Common Stock that may be delivered pursuant to Awards under the Plan by an additional two million five hundred six thousand one hundred twenty-three (2,506,123) shares.







NOW, THEREFORE, in accordance with Section 18 of the Plan, the Company hereby amends the Plan as follows:







1.           Section 3(a) of the Plan is hereby amended by deleting said section in its entirety and substituting in lieu thereof the following new Section 3(a):







(a) Stock Subject to the Plan.  Subject to the provisions of Section 13 of the Plan, the maximum aggregate number of Shares that may be subject to Awards and sold under the Plan is 4,506,123 Shares, plus (i) any Shares that, as of the date of stockholder approval of this Plan, have been reserved but not issued pursuant to any awards granted under the BioSig Technologies, Inc. 2011 Long-Term Incentive Plan (the “2011 Plan”) and are not subject to any awards granted thereunder, and (ii) any Shares subject to stock options or similar awards granted under the 2011 Plan that expire or otherwise terminate without having been exercised in full and Shares issued pursuant to awards granted under the 2011 Plan that are forfeited to or repurchased by the Company, with the maximum number of Shares to be added to the Plan pursuant to clauses (i) and (ii) equal to 1,500,000 Shares. The Shares may be authorized but unissued, or reacquired Common Stock.


 


2.            Except as expressly amended by this Amendment, the Plan shall continue in full force and effect in accordance with the provisions thereof.







* * * * * * * *







[Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank


Signature Page Follows.]


 




  





  











  






 


 


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be duly executed as of the date first written above.







BIOSIG TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

















By:           /s/ Kenneth L. Londoner                                                      


Name:           Kenneth L. Londoner 


Title:            Chairman of the Board of Directors
#### COM. v. HUDSON, K.

526 WDA 2017

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

09/22/2017

CP-27-CR-0000077-2016 (Forest)

Affirmed — Application to Withdraw as Counsel Granted
# United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 24-1246

___________________________

Lisa Truong lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v. Collins Aerospace System; Seyfarth Shaw, LLP; Rosemount Aerospace Inc.,

doing business as UTC Aerospace Systems lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota

____________ Submitted: July 26, 2024 Filed: August 1, 2024 [Unpublished]

____________ Before SMITH, SHEPHERD, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM.Lisa Truong appeals the district court’s 1 dismissal of her pro se employment

action for insufficient service of process. After careful review of the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the action. See Norsyn, Inc. v. Desai, 351 F.3d 825, 829-30 (8th Cir. 2003) (standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

1 The Honorable John R. Tunheim, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. -2-
EXHIBIT 35.1








ANNUAL SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT PURSUANT TO ITEM 1123 OF REGULATION AB





CARMAX BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC








The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of CarMax Business Services, LLC, as Servicer pursuant to Section 3.10 of the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of February 1, 2015 (the "Sale and Servicing Agreement") among CarMax Auto Owner Trust 2015-1, as Issuer (the "Issuer"), CarMax Auto Funding LLC, as Depositor, and CarMax Business Services, LLC, as Servicer (the "Servicer"), does hereby certify that:





|   |                                                                                                              
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|1. | CarMax Business Services, LLC is, as of the date hereof, the Servicer under the Sale and Servicing Agreement.




|   |                                                                                      
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|2. | The undersigned is duly authorized to execute and deliver this Officer's Certificate.




|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|3. | A review of the activities of the Servicer during the period beginning on March 1, 2015 and ending on February 29, 2016 and of the Servicer's performance under the Sale and Servicing Agreement was made under my supervision.  To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Sale and Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout such period.







Capitalized terms used in this certificate and not otherwise defined herein have the meanings assigned to them in the Sale and Servicing Agreement.





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of the Servicer, has duly executed this Officer's Certificate this 20th day of May, 2016.





CARMAX BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC





/s/ Andrew J. McMonigle


Andrew J. McMonigle


Vice President, Treasurer and Assistant Secretary
2018 EAVS Data Brief: Hawaii EAVS Jurisdictions 

4 

 Voter Registration 

Total Registered Voters, 

Nov. 20181 

756,751 

1 A1a of EAVS 

Registration Forms Received, 

E-Day 2016 – E-Day 20182 

185,273 

2 A3a of EAVS 

New Voters Registered, 

E-Day 2016 – E-Day 20183 

75,706 

3 A3b of EAVS 

Sources of Registration Forms4 

4 A4a-l of EAVS 

Mail/Fax/Email 0 

In-Person 0 

Online 45,126 

Motor Vehicle Office 0 

Public Assistance 

Office 0 

Disability Office 0 

Military Recruitment 

Office 0 

Other Non-NVRA 

Office 0 

Registration Drives 0 

Other Sources or Not 

Categorized 140,147 

 Voter Turnout 

Voters Participating by Mode5 

In-Person Early 

28,300 

14% 

In-Person E-Day 

175,120 Other Mode 

85% 1,580 

1% 

5 In-person Election Day 

voters is F1b. By-mail voters 

is F1d+F1g. In-person early 

voters is F1f. Other mode is 

F1c+F1e+F1h. 

Total Turnout:6 398,657 

6 F1a of EAVS 

Provisional Voters:7 254 

7 F1e of EAVS 

UOCAVA Voters:8 1,326 

8 F1c of EAVS 

Election Technology 

Technology Used by Jurisdictions9 

4 4 

DRE w/o DRE with Ballot Scanner Hand Electronic 

0 0 0 

VVPAT VVPAT Marking Count Poll Book 

Device 

0 



9 F3a-d, F5a-F8a, and 

F11a of EAVS 

Election Policies 

✔ Has online voter registration10 

10 Q6 of Policy Survey 

✔ Has a form of same-day voter registration (SDR)11 

11 Q7 of Policy Survey 

Has all-mail elections statewide12 

Has all-mail elections in certain jurisdictions12 

12 Q9a of Policy Survey 

✔ Allows voters to register as permanent absentee 

voters13 

13 Q10 of Policy Survey Requires excuse for by-mail voting14 

Requires excuse for in-person early or in-person 14 Q8 of Policy Survey 

absentee voting15 15 Q12a of Policy Survey 

Uses vote centers16 16 Q13 of Policy Survey 

Notes 

EAVS data and reports may be downloaded at 

www.eac.gov. 

Responses of “Does not apply” and “Data not available”

are shown as zeroes.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 42 (Tuesday, March 4, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 9681]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5293]



[[Page 9681]]

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


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71

[Airspace Docket No. 97-AAL-2]


Amendment to Class E Airspace; Buckland, AK

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule, correction.

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

SUMMARY: This action corrects the effective date and an error in the 
geographic coordinates of a final rule that was published in the 
Federal Register on January 6, 1997 (62 FR 608), Airspace Docket 96-
AAL-32.

EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 UTC, March 27, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert van Haastert, System Management Branch, AAL-538, Federal 
Aviation Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14, Anchorage, AK 
99513-7587; telephone number: (907) 271-5863; e-mail: 
Robert.van.H<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5c3d3d2f28392e281c3a3d3d72383328723b332a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="dcbdbdafa8b9aea89cbabdbdf2b8b3a8f2bbb3aa">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

History

    Federal Register Document 97-175, Airspace Docket 96-AAL-32, 
published on January 6, 1997, (62 FR 608), revised the Class E airspace 
area at Buckland, AK. The effective date for Airspace Docket 96-AAL-32 
and the geographic coordinates for AKUDY are in error. This action 
corrects these errors.

Correction to Final Rule

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the 
effective date for the Airspace Docket 96-AAL-32 and the geographic 
coordinates listed for AKUDY as published in the Federal Register on 
January 6, 1997 (62 FR 608), (Federal Register Document 97-175, page 
608), is corrected as follows:
* * * * *
EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 UTC, March 27, 1997.
* * * * *


Sec. 71.1  [Corrected]

* * * * *

AAL AK E5  Buckland, AK [Corrected]

    By removing ``(lat. 66 deg.04'23'' N, long. 161 deg.30'08'' W)'' 
and substituting ``(lat. 66 deg.04'23'' N, long. 161 deg.30'09'' 
W).''
* * * * *
    Issued in Anchorage, AK on February 25, 1997.
Willis C. Nelson,
Manager, Air Traffic Division, Alaskan Region.
[FR Doc. 97-5293 Filed 3-3-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 51109 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

–

Appellee ,

v ersus
JOSE ROLANDO DESANTIAGO , Defendant

– Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas No. 2:14

- CR

- 1754

- 1

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
Jose Desantiago claims the within

- guidelines term of 60 months

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED June 27, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-51109 Document: 00513566399 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/27/2016No. 15

- 51109

2 imposed on his conviction of illegal reentry was greater than necessary to meet the goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) . He further a ve rs that U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 is not empirically based , that the sentence fails to accou n t for the nonviolent nature of his offense, and that the guideline range does not reflect his cultural assimilation.
This court reviews a sentenc e for abuse of discretion. See G all v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. Cisneros

- Gutierrez , 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008). A within

- guidelines sentence is entitled to a presump

tion of reasonableness. See United States v. Campos

- Maldonado , 531 F.3d 337, 338 (5th Cir. 2008)

. The record reflects that the district court ad equately considered the § 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Mondragon

- Santiago , 564 F.3d 357, 36 0 (5th Cir. 2009). Although Desantiago contends that this court should not apply the presumption of reasonableness because § 2L1.2 lacks an empirical basi s, he concedes that th at argument is foreclosed by Mondragon

- Santiago , 564 F.3d
at 366. Desantiago’s theory regarding cultural assimilation is also insufficient to rebut the presumption. See United States v. Lopez

- Velasquez , 526 F.3d 804, 807 (5th Cir. 200 8 )

. Further, we have rejected the notion that the g uidelines overstate the seriousness of the offense of illegal reentry

. See United States v. Gomez

- Herrera, 5 23 F.3d 554, 565

– 66 (5th Cir. 2008); United States v. Juarez

Duarte , 513 F.3d 204, 212 (5th Cir. 2008).
Because Desantiago has failed to demonstrate that the district court did not consider a sentencing factor that should have received significant weight, that it gave significant weight to a factor it should have discounted, or that it made a clear error of judgment when it balanced the relevant factors, he has not rebutted the presumption of reasonableness. See United States v. Cooks , 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009). The judgment of sentence is AFFIRMED. Case: 15-51109 Document: 00513566399 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/27/2016
# C_2021182EN.01006401.xml

| 10.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 182/64 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/64

---

Action brought on 23 March 2021 — Völkl v EUIPO — Marker Dalbello Völkl (International) (Völkl)

(Case T-155/21)

(2021/C 182/87)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Völkl GmbH & Co. KG (Erding, Germany) (represented by: C. Raßmann, M. Suether and F. Adinolfi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Marker Dalbello Völkl (International) GmbH (Baar, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark Völkl — EU trade mark No 4 467 569

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 January 2021 in Case R 568/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and the other party, should it intervene, to pay the costs of these proceedings and of the earlier appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the other party, should it intervene, to pay the costs of these proceedings and of the earlier appeal proceedings.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and (4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and (4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

AKIRA AKAZAWA and PALM CREST, INC.,

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

v. 

LINK NEW TECH, INC., 

Defendant. 

____________________ 

2010-1077 

______________________

 

 Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Central District of California in Case No. 03-CV-1474, 

Judge James V. Selna. 

______________________ 

JUDGMENT 

______________________ 

R. JOSEPH TROJAN, Trojan Law Offices, of Beverly 

Hills, California, argued for plaintiffs-appellants. With 

him on the brief was Dylan C. Dang. 

______________________ 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 
 PER CURIAM (NEWMAN, PROST, and MOORE, Circuit 

Judges). 

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36. 

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

October 18, 2010 /s/ Jan Horbaly

 Date Jan Horbaly 

 Clerk
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 6 (Thursday, January 9, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 1631]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-00225]

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

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting; Cancellation

Federal Register CITATION OF PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT: Vol. 79, No. 2, 
Friday, January 3, 2014, page 387.

ANNOUNCED TIME AND DATE OF MEETING: Wednesday, January 8, 2014, 10 
a.m.-12 p.m.

MEETING CANCELED.
    For a recorded message containing the latest agenda information, 
call (301) 504-7948.

CONTACT PERSON FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Todd A. Stevenson, Office of 
the Secretary, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814 (301) 504-
7923.

    Dated: January 7, 2014.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-00225 Filed 1-7-14; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF STEVENS INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND
SUBSIDIARIES AS OF JUNE 30, 1998 AND FOR THE SIX MONTHS THEN ENDED AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           2,895
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,336
<ALLOWANCES>                                       298
<INVENTORY>                                      5,469
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                20,862
<PP&E>                                           4,387
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,853
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  25,055
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           15,439
<BONDS>                                          4,382
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           949
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,415
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    25,055
<SALES>                                         15,040
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                15,040
<CGS>                                           12,075
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   16,296
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   251
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,201
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (6)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (75)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (81)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 11,221
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    11,140
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.09
        


</TABLE>
#### COM. v. HENRY, D.

165 EDA 2016

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

09/22/2017

Reargument Denied 10/17/2017

CP-51-CR-0805831-2004 (Philadelphia)

Affirmed/Remanded
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**




**Certification
      Pursuant to**


**18
      U.S.C. Section 1350,**


**as
      Adopted Pursuant to**


**Section
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Telestone Technologies Corporation
      (the
“Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2007 as filed with
      the Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Liu
      Dongping, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that:




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




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




Dated:  November
      14, 2007




By:
            /s/
                Liu DongpingName:
            Liu
                DongpingTitle:
            Chief
                Financial Officer (Principal Financial
                Officer)




1
CHEMICAL SECURITY AND ELIMINATION

COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION PROGRAM

BIOLOGICAL THREAT REDUCTION PROGRAM

• The CSE Program has ongoing projects 

with nine countries and international 

organizations to prevent VEOs or state 

actors with nefarious intent from stealing, 

diverting, or intentionally releasing TICs or 

CW precursors, and related materials.

• The CSE prevents the proliferation of 

materials, technologies, and expertise to 

state and non-state actors with the intent 

to develop or enhance CW capabilities. 

• The CSE Program performs this mission 

by improving partner country regulatory 

frameworks, chemical security practices, 

export control practices, and insider-threat 

mitigation techniques.

The DoD’s CTR Program is a threat based, counter-weapons of mass destruction 

program, and the Department works cooperatively with allies and partners to reduce 

or eliminate WMD threats. The DoD’s CTR Program is guided by the 2017 National 

Security Strategy, 2018 National Defense Strategy, the DoD Countering Weapons 

of Mass Destruction Strategy. Its primary purpose is to reduce and eliminate WMD 

threats. The cooperative nature of the DoD’s CTR activities yields a secondary benefit 

of strengthening regional alliances, deepening existing partnerships, and attracting 

new partners. Consequently, the DoD, through the CTR Program, has helped create a 

network of likeminded allies and partners with increased threat reduction capabilities 

that contribute and advance the interests and security of the United States of America.

The CSE Program supports the cooperative elimination of chemical weapons (CW), 

related materials, and infrastructure; and builds the capacity of international partners 

to secure toxic industrial chemicals (TIC) and CW precursors, as well as associated 

components, materials, equipment, technology, and expertise.

DTRA provides cross-cutting solutions to enable the Department of Defense, the United 

States Government, and international partners to Deter strategic attack against the 

United States and its allies; Prevent, reduce, and counter WMD and emerging threats; DTRA MISSION

and Prevail against WMD-armed adversaries in crisis and conflict.

KEY FACTS

CW elimination, Syria

CW elimination & physical security, 

Libya

CW elimination and destruction 

facility in Russia