alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ex101.htm



Exhibit 10.1


MAGNOLIA SOLAR CORPORATION.


54 Cummings Park


Suite 316


Woburn, MA 01801




 


December 31, 2013







Re:           Magnolia Solar Corporation







Ladies and Gentlemen:







Reference is made to that certain (i) Second Amended and Restated Original Issue Discount Senior Secured Convertible Note of Magnolia Solar Corporation (the “Company”) dated December 21, 2012 in the aggregate principal amount set forth in the signature line below held by the undersigned (the “Second Amended Note”), and (ii) Second Amended and Restated Warrant dated December 21, 2012 as evidenced by the warrant number referenced in the signature line below (the “Second Amended Warrant”). Reference is further made to those other notes and/or warrants (the “Other Notes” and “Other Warrants”, respectively), originally issued, directly or indirectly, in connection with that certain offering of 26.6 units of the Company that closed on December 31, 2009 and which resulted, either directly or indirectly, in the issuance of the Second Amended Note and Second Amended Warrant.







1. Effective as of the date hereof, the holder of the Second Amended Note and Second Amended Warrant (the “Holder”) and the Company hereby agree as follows: (i) the Maturity Date of the Second Amended Note, as such term is defined therein, is extended to December 31, 2014, (ii) the Warrant Price of the Second Amended Warrant, as such term is defined therein, is reduced to $0.10 per share, and (iii) except as set forth herein, all other terms and conditions of the Second Amended Note and Second Amended Warrant shall remain unamended and in full force and effect.







2. The Holder hereby waives any adjustment under Section 5 of the Second Amended Note and Second Amended Warrant that (i) may arise under the provisions of Section 1 herein, (ii) may arise as a result of the extension of the term of any Other Note, (iii) as a result of the reduction of the Warrant Price of any Other Warrant, and/or (B) may have occurred at any time after the issuance of the Second Amended Note and Second Amended Warrant through to and including the date hereof.







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


 



	 	
Very truly yours,


 


MAGNOLIA SOLAR CORPORATION


	 	  
	 	/s/ Ashok K. Sood 	
12/31/2013


	 	
By: Dr. Ashok K. Sood


	 	
Title: President and Chief Executive Officer












Agreed and Accepted


as of the date hereof:


 



	
/s/ Sean Lyons

	
 







By: Mr. Sean Lyons


Title: Managing Member, Debt Opportunity Fund, LLLP












Principal Amount of Note: _$400,000___







Warrant No: __MSC-003A________
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7220
SIMON NEWMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus AL HAYNES; K.M. WHITE; HARRELL WATTS; HARLEY G. LAPPIN; USP HAZELTON, and Staff, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:06-cv-00091-FPS) Submitted: November 15, 2007 Decided: November 27, 2007 Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Simon Newman, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Simon Newman appeals the district court order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing without prejudice Newman’s civil action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the district court’s reasoning that Newman did not exhaust his administrative remedies under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C.A. § 2675(a) (2000). See Newman v. Haynes , No. 5:06-cv-00091-FPS (N.D.W. Va. July 2, 2007). We dispense with oral argument b ecause the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>           5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       1,175,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  891,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (706,000)
<INVENTORY>                                  8,992,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                         221,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                (194,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,128,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                     21,653,000
<COMMON>                                       532,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  2,000,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 (28,397,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                11,128,000
<SALES>                                         15,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               510,000
<CGS>                                           12,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   20,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,145,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,698,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (3,353,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (3,353,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.87)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.87)
<FN>
<F1> CURRENT ASSETS AND CURRENT LIABILITIES VALUES ARE ZERO BECAUSE OF
     AN UNCLASSIFIED BALANCE SHEET.
        

</TABLE>
No. 11-8101.

#### Carter *v.*United States.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
exh_1021.htm


Exhibit 10.21







AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE HARVARD BIOSCIENCE, INC.


EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN







WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of Harvard Bioscience, Inc.  (“Company”) adopted the Harvard Bioscience, Inc. Employee Stock Purchase Plan (“Plan”) on October 26, 2000; and







WHEREAS, the Plan is intended to constitute an “employee stock purchase plan”  within the meaning of Section 423 (b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (“Plan“); and







WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan in accordance with Section 18 thereof;







NOW, THEREFORE, the Company hereby amends the definition of Compensation in its entirety as it appears in the first paragraph of Section 11 of the Plan effective as of January 1, 2012,  as follows:







“The term, “Compensation” means the amount of an employee’s  base pay from the Company prior to any reduction for deferrals made under either Code Section 125 or 401(k), including commissions, but excluding overtime, incentive or  bonus awards, allowances and reimbursements for expenses such as relocation allowances or travel expenses, income or gains on the exercise of Company stock options, and similar extraordinary items.”
(logo) TRIMONT

Global

 

**OFFICER’SCERTIFICATE**

For the period January 1, 2018 ThroughDecember 31, 2018

 

Morgan Stanley Bank of America Merrill Lynch Trust 2015-C21,

Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2015-C21

 

As authorized Officer of TRIMONT REALESTATE ADVISORS, LLC f/k/a Trimont Real Estate Advisors, Inc., the“Subservicer” under that certain Subservicing Agreement dated as of February 1,2015, between Subservicer and KeyBank National Association (the “Agreement”),and with respect to the preceding calendar period, a review of the activitiesof Subservicer, as during the period and its performance under this Agreementhas been made under such Officer's supervision.

 

To the best of such Officer'sknowledge, based on such review, the Subservicer has fulfilled its obligationsunder the Agreement in all material respects throughout such period.

 

  

Date: February 27, 2019

** **

**TRIMONT REAL ESTATE ADVISORS, LLC**

 

By:/s/ Mike Dillon

MikeDillon

AuthorizedSignatory

 

 

One Alliance Center

3500 Lenox Road #G1

Atlanta. GA 30326
* 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 July 22, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-21121 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus EDUARDO AGUIRRE, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:02-CR-36-2

-------------------- Before JONES, BARKSDALE and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Eduardo Aguirre appeals from his sentence following his guilty-plea conviction of aiding and abetting to possess with intent to distribute 100 kilograms or more of marijuana. Aguirre argues that, under United States v. Booker , 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), the district court clearly erred in increasing his sentence by finding by a preponderance of the evidence that he was responsible for an amount of marijuana beyond the 461 kilograms for which Aguirre admitted responsibility.No. 03-21121 -2- It is not necessary to consider Aguirre’s Booker argument because, as the Government argues, Aguirre’s sentence should be vacated and the matter remanded for resentencing based on our holdings in four of Aguirre’s co-indictees’ appeals that the district court clearly erred in basing its findings of drug quantity on the statements of an informant who the Government had identified as unreliable. See United States v. Ayala , 107 Fed. Appx. 410 (5th Cir. 2004)(unpublished); United States v. Trevino , 125 Fed. Appx. 549 (5th Cir. 2005)(unpublished). There is no reason to reach a different result in Aguirre’s case, and Aguirre’s sentence is VACATED and the matter REMANDED remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Because we have vacated Aguirre’s sentence, we do not consider Aguirre’s arguments pertaining to the denial of a reduction in his offense level for acceptance of responsibility or that his sentence should be reversed because the Government breached its plea agreement. We GRANT the appellee’s unopposed motion to seal the appellee’s brief.
SENTENCE VACATED AND THE MATTER REMANDED; MOTION TO SEAL
APPELLEE’S BRIEF GRANTED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                      31,954,217
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                7,024,782
<ALLOWANCES>                                   175,000
<INVENTORY>                                    466,546
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            42,541,458
<PP&E>                                      48,404,619
<DEPRECIATION>                              28,489,564
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              71,534,701
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,288,962
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        56,269
<OTHER-SE>                                  51,297,578
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                71,534,701
<SALES>                                     11,841,675
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            11,841,675
<CGS>                                       10,919,862
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               10,919,862
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             (471,904)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                234,253
<INCOME-TAX>                                    74,961
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            159,292
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   159,292
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .03
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 23

                  PUBLIC SERVICE ENTERPRISE GROUP INCORPORATED

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

      We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements
Nos. 33-44581, 33-44582 and 33-45491 of Public Service Enterprise Group
Incorporated on Form S-8 and Registration Statements No. 33-49123 and 333-65261
of Public Service Enterprise Group Incorporated on Form S-3 of our report dated
February 12, 1999, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Public
Service Enterprise Group Incorporated for the year ended December 31, 1998.


DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Parsippany, New Jersey
February 22, 1999
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-2631

ROBERT JAMES KENNY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH

CIRCUIT,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-99-296-3)

Submitted: January 20, 2000 Decided: January 28, 2000

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert James Kenny, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Hannah Lauck, OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Robert James Kenny appeals from the district court’s order

denying his motion to re-open a prior case. We have reviewed the

record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we deny Kenny’s motion to proceed in forma

pauperis and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. See Kenny v. United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth

Circuit, No. CA-99-296-3 (E.D. Va. Dec. 6, 1999). We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
# C_2022002EN.01004301.xml

| 3.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 2/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 2/43

---

Action brought on 20 October 2021 — Alves Casas v EUIPO — Make-Up Art Cosmetics (mccosmetics NY)

(Case T-681/21)

(2022/C 2/59)

Language in which the application was lodged: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Ana Maria Alves Casas (Porto, Portugal) (represented by: Â. Rodrigues Oliveira, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Make-Up Art Cosmetics, Inc. (New York, New York, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark mccosmetics NY — Application for registration No 17 866 777

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 October 2021 in Case R 2398/2020-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs, with all the attendant legal consequences. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs, with all the attendant legal consequences.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 47(2) and (3) and Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 47(2) and (3) and Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
Gerardo C. Rios 

South Coast 

Air Quality Management District 

21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4182 

(909) 396-2000- www.agmd.gov 

Chief, Air Permits Office (Air-3) 

EPA Region 9 

75 Hawthorne Street 

San Francisco, CA 941 05 

SUBJECT: 40 CFR Part 51 , Appendix S Applicability 

Dear Mr. Rios: 

July 10, 2014 

This letter is in response to your request for additional information regarding compliance with 

the federal new source review (NSR) requirements for fine particulate matter (PM2.5), in the 

interim, while requirements consistent with this national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) 

are incorporated into our NSR program. In particular, you have asked us to acknowledge the 

applicability of 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 51, Appendix S to new major sources 

and major modifications to existing major sources during the period prior to EPA's approval of a 

NSR program applicable to our PM2.s non-attainment area. 

As you are aware, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) is currently 

classified as a moderate nonattainment area under the 1997 and 2006 PM2.s NAAQS. Thus, a 

revised NSR program submittal was due to EPA on May 16, 2011 and again on December 14, 

2012. Accordingly, the SCAQMD Governing Board adopted new Rule 1325 - Federal PM2.s 

New Source Review on June 3, 2011 ~and ARB submitted the rule to EPA for SIP approval on 

September 27, 2011. 

Until EPA takes a fmal action to approve our revised NSR program, we acknowledge that the 

applicable requirements of 40 CFR part 51 , Appendix S apply to any new major source or major 

modification of a major source, as defined therein, for sources emitting direct PM2.s. or sulfur 

oxides (SOx) or NOx as PM2.s precursors. 

MN:am 

cc: Barry Wallerste in 

Kurt Wiese 

Barbara Baird 

Elaine Chang 

Deputy Executive Officer 

Engineering and Compliance
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-10249

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

TYRELL DEFARIS ERWIN,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:97-CV-64-P

USDC No. 3:84-CR-168-3-P

- - - - - - - - - -

August 17, 1998

Before JONES, BARKSDALE and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Tyrell Defaris Erwin, federal prisoner #01120-078, seeks a

certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal from the final

judgment granting his motion for correction of his sentence

pursuant to FED. R. CRIM. P. 35(a) but denying him a new

sentencing hearing in conjunction with the correction of his

sentence. Erwin’s motion for a COA is DENIED as unnecessary. 

Erwin’s motions for dismissal of the indictment, for release

pending appeal, for appointment of counsel, and for oral argument
No. 98-10249

-2-

all are DENIED.

Erwin contends that he should have received a sentencing

hearing in conjunction with the correction of his sentence. We

have reviewed Erwin’s appellate submissions and we find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for essentially the

same reasons on which the district court relied. See United

States v. Erwin, No. 3:97-CV-064-P (N.D. Tex. Feb. 11, 1998).

Erwin also contends that he was deprived of his right to be

indicted by a grand jury from which minorities were not

systematically excluded; that various constitutional rights were

violated during his criminal proceedings; and that his detention

violated the Interstate Detainer Act. Erwin has failed to brief

those issues for appeal. Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy

Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).

AFFIRMED.
o 

hclcf hoT'osr^/^p-356<i 

U.S.D«partlTMntOf 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

TIransportorHon Washington, DC 20590 

Office Of the Secretary 

of Transportation 

May 4, 2010 

VIA EMAIL 

The Honorable Mayor Dan Porter 

Mayor 

City of Cortez 

210 East Main Street 

Cortez, Colorado 81321 

Dear Mayor Porter: 

I would like to update you on the essential air service situation at Alamosa and Cortez and 

give you an opportunity to submit comments, if you wish. 

As you know, by Order 2010-3-34, issued March 30, 2010, the Department solicited 

proposals from air carriers interested in providing essential air service at the communities in 

anticipation of the end of the current contract on July 31, 2010. At this stage, we would 

normally ask for your preferences for various carriers and service options. However, in 

response to that order. Great Lakes Aviation, Ltd. (the incumbent), was the only carrier to 

submit a proposal. Nonetheless, we want to give you an opportunity to submit any final 

comments for the record that you may have before we make a carrier-selection 

recommendation to the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs. 

In addition to our brief description below, the proposal, as well as Order 2010-3-34, can be 

viewed online at www.regulations.gov, by doing a search on Docket DOT-OST-1997-2960 or 

DOT-OST-1998-3508. 

Great Lakes proposes to continue operating its current level of service, i.e., 18 nonstop round 

trips per week between each community and Denver International Airport, with 19-seat 

Beech 1900 aircraft, at the annual subsidy rate of $1,987,155 for Alamosa, and $1,847,657 at 

Cortez. 

Please note that proposed schedules are illustrative and the carriers may make schedule 

changes to reflect changing conditions. The Department expects subsidized air carriers to 

maintain well-timed and well-spaced flights to ensure full compensation. 

My puipose in writing to you at this time is to give you an opportunity to submit any final 

comments you might have on the proposed service. We request that you review this 
information as expeditiously as possible and submit any comments you may have as soon as 

possible, but in any case no later than June 4, 2010. We will carefully consider your 

comments before we submit a recommendation to the Assistant Secretary for a final decision. 

If you have questions, or if you find that you need additional time to draft your comments, 

please let us know. 

Please submit your comments to me at: EAS@dot.gov. 

In addition, we would appreciate if you would email your comments to both 

dennis.devanv@dot.gov and renee.williams@dot.gov. You should also send a copy of your 

comments to Great Lakes. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or Renee 

WiUiams of my staff at 202-366-1058. 

An identical letter has been sent to the Manager of the Cortez Municipal Airport. 

Sincerely, 

Dennis J. DeVany, Chief 

EAS & Domestic Analysis Division 

Office of Aviation Analysis 

•fr