alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.1


 





 


FIRST AMENDMENT TO SECURED SUBORDINATED CONVERTIBLE
NOTE


 


This FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE SECURED SUBORDINATED CONVERTIBLE
NOTE (this “First Amendment”) is dated as of March __, 2012 and entered into by and among EDGEWAVE, INC.,
(“Company”), and [_________] (“Holder”), and is made with reference to that certain Secured
Subordinated Convertible Note dated as of December 5, 2011 (the “Note”). Capitalized terms used herein
without definition shall have the same meanings herein as set forth in the Note.


 


RECITALS


WHEREAS, Company and Holder desire to amend the Note
as set forth herein;


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and
the agreements, provisions and covenants herein contained, the parties hereto agree as follows:


Section 1.Amendment to Section 4(C). Section 4(C)
is hereby amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows:


“4(c) New Note Restrictions. Prior
to December 5, 2012 the Company shall not issue a New Note or series of New Notes for aggregate consideration of in excess of $25,000
with a New Note Conversion Rate of any New Note less than the then current Conversion Price of this Note.”


Section 2.Effectiveness. This First Amendment
shall have an effective date of December 5, 2011.


Section 3.Limitation. The amendment set forth
in this First Amendment shall be limited precisely as written and shall not be deemed to be a waiver or modification of any other
term or condition of the Note. Except as expressly amended hereby, the Note shall continue in full force and effect.


Section 4. Counterparts. This First Amendment
may be executed in one or more counterparts and by different parties hereto in separate counterparts, each of which when so executed
and delivered shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument; signature pages
may be detached from multiple separate counterparts and attached to a single counterpart so that all signature pages are physically
attached to the same document.


Remainder of the page left intentionally
blank. Signature page to follow



    	1



    	 



    

 


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties
hereto have caused this First Amendment to the Note to be executed by their respective officers thereunto duly authorized, as of
the date first above written.


 


	Company:
	Edgewave, Inc.
	By:_______________________________________
	Name: 
	Title:


 


	Holder:
	 
	By:_______________________________________
	Name:   
	Title:     


 


 


 



    	2
UN PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17

- 6310

DWIGHT CHARLES WISHARD , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Defendant

- Appellee , and

ALL UNITED STATES JUSTICE DEPARTMENT OFFICE OF TRUST OFFICERS, EMPLOYEES OR AGENTS; ALL UNITED STATES FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISON OFFICE OF TRUST OFFICERS, EMPLOYEES OR AGENTS , Defendants

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. James C. Fox , Senior District Judge. ( 5:16

- ct

- 03173

- F )

Submitted : May 2 5 , 2017 Decided: May 31, 2017

Before MOTZ , THACKER , and HARRIS , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by un published per curiam opinion

.2 Dwight Charles Wishard, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM: Dwight Charles Wishard seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing in part Wishard’s civil action and denying Wishard’s motion for injunctive relief. We dismiss in part and affirm in part. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R.
Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541, 545

- 46 (1949). The portion of the order that dismissed in part Wishard’s action is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral ord er. Accordingly, we dismiss this part of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
However, we have jurisdictio n over that portion of the order that denied Wishard’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) (2012). On appeal,

we c onfine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Wishard’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition of this motion, Wishard has forfeited appellate review of that porti on of the

order. See Williams v. Giant Food Inc. , 370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4 (4th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of injunctive relief

. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART
No. 11-6928.

#### Jamaur Lewis, Petitioner v. United States. Curtis Solomon, Petitioner v. United States. Devon Chance, Petitioner v. United States.

No. 11-6939.

No. 11-6965.

565 U.S. 1069, 132 S. Ct. 784,

181 L. Ed. 2d 502,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8522.

November 28, 2011.

Petitions for writs of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.

Same cases below, 433 Fed. Appx. 844.
6 October 2015 ***************************

NSN: 8920-01-545-1811 (FTF) *MONOGRAPH NO. FS1-02

 ***************************

Item: Filled French toast

Document: MIL-DTL-32221, Filled Bakery Item, Shelf Stable, for Operational Rations

Approximate Caloric Value Per Serving: 300 Component Classification: Primary

Estimated Shelf Life: 3 years @ 80oF

Item Characteristics

Appearance:

Overall: Square or rectangular shape.

Bread: Slightly dense and have a uniform cell structure; no compression streaks.

Crust: Uniform medium golden brown; no excessive flour dusting; visible dark brown 

maple flakes.

Filling: Light to medium golden brown gel matrix; no leakage through the bread 

portion.

Odor: Caramel and French toast.

Flavor: Caramel and French toast.

Texture:

Bread: Not excessively dry and crumbly or excessively moist and gummy. Slightly 

dense and uniform cell structure.

Filling: Not excessively thin or runny.

Possible Deteriorative Changes 

Appearance:

Bread: Darkened or browned crumb. 

Filling: Leakage through the bread portion. Dry.

Odor: Burnt, scorched, rancid, oxidized, sour, stale, musty, or moldy.

Flavor: Burnt, scorched, rancid, oxidized, sour, stale, musty, moldy, or bitter.

Texture: Bread: Excessively dry or crumbly or excessively moist or gummy.

Filling: Excessively thin or runny. Dry.

Unique Examination/Test Procedures

This product should contain an oxygen scavenger packet. If defects such as oxidized or rancid odors 

exist, they are likely due to package failure or the absence of an oxygen scavenger.

Special Notes

Each pouch shall contain one intact sandwich and one intact oxygen scavenger.
6 October 2015 ***************************

NSN: 8920-01-545-1811 (FTF) *MONOGRAPH NO. FS1-02

 ***************************

Some bleeding of filling into the bread crumb is normal but may increase over time.
No. 10-10800.

#### Kenderick Begay, aka Kendrick Begay, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 1072, 132 S. Ct. 754,

181 L. Ed. 2d 508,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8421.

November 28, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

Same case below, 673 F.3d 1038.
21 October 20 **************************** 

NSN 8955-01-473-9290 (TEA) * MONOGRASPH NO: M7Q 

 **************************** 

Item: Tea, Instant, Regular, Sweetened, Lemon flavored (16 gram) 

Document: CID A-A-20183 Tea Mixes, Instant (Variety I, Style A, Type 1, Flavor 2) 

Approximate Caloric Value Per Serving: 67 Component Classification: Ancillary 

Estimated Shelf Life: 36 months at 80°F 

Item Characteristics

Appearance: 

Dehydrated: homogeneous mixture of light/medium brown, fine grained, free flowing 

powder. 

Rehydrated: Light to medium rust-brown, clear or slightly cloudy liquid, may have 

slight sediment. 

Odor: Mild tea aroma, moderate lemon, sweet, citric, slight perfume note. 

Flavor: Moderately sweet, lemon, low tea, sweet, slight citrus, tart. 

Texture: Astringent, drying, smooth, clean mouth-feel, liquid. 

Possible Deteriorative Changes 

Appearance: Clumping and darkening of powder; darkening of liquid, cloudy, un-rehydrated 

granules and excessive sedimentation.. 

Odor: Low to no tea odor, high perfume, musty, tart, bitter, burnt. 

Flavor: Decreased tea/lemon/sweetness, sour, bitter, burnt. 

Texture: Powder clumped and not free flowing; in liquid un-dissolved powder 

or excessive sediment. 

Unique Examination/Test Procedures

Prepare beverage in accordance with package instructions. Product should dissolve completely within 

approximately two minutes. 
21 October 20 **************************** 

NSN 8955-01-473-9290 (TEA) * MONOGRASPH NO: M7Q 

 **************************** 

Special Notes

In the rehydrated product, if slight sedimentation is observed but the odor and flavor are normal, do not 

score the sedimentation as a defect during surveillance inspection; make note of it in the narrative for 

future use. Coagulation may occur if the product has had temperature abuse. Coagulation result in 

clumps of granules that do not readily dissolve when product is reconstituted and tend to float in 

suspension
February 06, 2024 DLA-SM-23-3246

DLA STRATEGIC MATERIALS ANNOUNCES

BOA SALES FOR January 2024

Fort Belvoir, VA - The Defense Logistics Agency Strategic Materials today announced sales made 

under the following Basic Ordering Agreements (BOA) during January 2024.

SOLICITATION:

DLA-Stockpile Materials-001

UNIT QUANTITY 

SOLD

APPROX 

VALUE

COMPANY

Ferrochrome Amendment 001 HC ST

LC ST

161 407 K *

Chromium Metal Amendment 001 ST 160 1.36 M *

Tin Amendment 001 MT NO

SALES

 *If no company name appears, the single awardee name has been withheld

F dditi l i f ti l t t i il t DLASt t i M t i l @dl il
No. 11-7069.

#### Johnny Trejo, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 1084, 132 S. Ct. 827,

181 L. Ed. 2d 535,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8725.

December 5, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
NO. 07-05-0387-CR IN THE COUR

T OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVEN TH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL B FEBRUARY

15, 2006

______________________________

DOUGLAS D. COX, Appellant

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

_________________________________ FROM THE 1 40th DIS TRICT CO URT OF LUB BOCK COUNT Y; NO. 2005-409,333; HON. JIM BOB DARNELL , PRESIDING

_______________________________ ON ABATEMENT AND REMAND

_______________________________ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. Douglas D. Cox appeals his co nviction for theft from a person 65 or over, enhance d. The clerk’s record was filed on January 11, 2006. The rep orter’s record was due o n January 26, 2006. On January 30, 2006, court reporter Ch arles Hanshew filed a request for extension, which the t rial court granted to F ebruary 15, 2006 for his port ion of the record. Hanshew also notified this Court that two other reporters, Teri Finney and Linda Reeves, did the majori ty of the trial. On February

3, 2006, reporters Finney and Reeves2

were notified by

letter that t heir recor

ds were dueand they were to completeand return the status form no later than Mon day, February 13, 2006. No form, e xtension moti on, or record has been received by either reporter. Acco rdin gly, we abate thi s appeal and remand the cause to the 140th District Court of Lubbock County ( trial cour t) for further proceedings. Upon rema nd, the trial court shall immedia tely cause notice of a hearing to be g iven and, ther eafter, conduct a hear ing to determ ine the followin g: 1. why Finney and Reeves have not filed their portions of the reporte r’s record; and, 2. when the reporter’s record can r eas onably be file d in a manner that does not have thepractical effect of depriving the appellant of hi s right to appeal or of delay ing the res olution of this ap peal. The trial cour

t shall caus e the hearing to be transcr ibed. So too shall it 1) execute findin gs of fact and co nclus ions of law addressing the foregoing issues, 2) cause to be developed a supplemental c lerk’s r ecord containi ng its findi ngs of fact and concl usions of law and all order

s it may i ssue as a result of its hearing in this matter, and 3) cau se to be developed a reporter’s record tra nscribing the evidence and argumentspresented at the af orementioned hearing. Additionally , the distri ct court shal l then file the s upplement a l record and reporter’s record transcribing the hearing with the clerk of this court on or befo re March 17, 2006. Shoul d furthe r timebe needed by the trial court to perfo rm these tasks, then same must be req uested before Marc h 17, 2006. It is so or

dered. Per Curiam Do not publish

.
#  Box2_Figure 1

Year

Percentage
Cc:

1 June 2012

FLASH POINT OF LIQUID SUSPENSION

Laboratory Project ID:

Work request Number:

Service Code Number:

Background

The flash point of fluorosurfactant liquid suspen sion is required for transportation classification per US DOT regulations. Test s were conducted on a liquid suspension

submitted from notebook reference

.Test Method

Flash point tests were conducte d according to ASTM D93-02, “Standard Test Methods for Flash Point by Pensky-Martens Closed Tester,” Method ‘B’, using a Petrolab Model PMA-4 automated tester. The suspension was gently stirred in its shipping bottle until visu al inspection showed that all solids had been suspended throughout the body of the liquid. 75 cc of th is liquid was then poured into a brass test cup which was then covered with a snug-fitting lid cont aining a trap door. The liquid was stirred and its temperature increased at a cont rolled rate of approximately 1.3 o C/min. In this case an agitator speed of 250 RPM was used to maintain a homogeneous solids suspension. A hot-wire igni tor was inserted into the vapor space of the cup through the trap door every 1 o C and a fine wire thermocouple just above the liquid surface and diametri cally opposed to the ignitor was used to detect whether a flash occurred.

Reference tests on n-dodecane were conducted at the beginning of the test program.

Results and Conclusions

The n-dodecane reference flash point of 83 o C was found to be within acceptable limits. No flash point was obtained for the suspension up to a temperature of 70 o C, at which significant refluxing and foaming of the liquid occurred. Based on this result is not regu lated for transport as a combustible liquid per US DOT under 49 CFR 173.120.

Acknowledgement

Test work was conducted by at the

Records Retention Classification

The CRIM classification of this technical report is “Technical In formation – Enduring Value”.
No. 11-6900.

#### Adán Gil Miranda, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 1044, 132 S. Ct. 598,

181 L. Ed. 2d 438,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8251.

November 14, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.

Same case below, 433 Fed. Appx. 866.
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATIONS**I, F. I. duPont, III, Chairman and CEO of First National Bancshares, Inc., certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of First National Bancshares, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;**(b) [This paragraph intentionally left blank.]**(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;and(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: August 15, 2005   /s/ F. I. duPont, III     F. I. duPont, III, Chairman & CEO
≥95% (0 awardees)

75% - 94% (4 awardees)

50% - 74% (10 awardees)

25% - 49% (27 awardee)

<25% (10 awardee)

No IIS (1 awardee)

No data (4 awardees)

Percentage of adults aged ≥19 years participating in an immunization 

information system -- United States, five cities§, and D.C., 2014

National Participation: 32% (excluding Territories)

Source: CY2014 IISAR

Last Date Updated: June 16, 2017

 § Chicago, IL; Houston, TX; New York City, NY; Philadelphia, PA; San Antonio, TX.
No. 11-7617.

#### Paul Riesselman, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 1136, 132 S. Ct. 1065,

181 L. Ed. 2d 780,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 552.

January 9, 2012.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.

*781Same case below, 646 F.3d 1072.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999             SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                               0                     484
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0                  26,772
<PP&E>                                               0                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0                  27,256
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0                  79,646
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                             0                 137,004
<OTHER-SE>                                           0               (189,394)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0                  27,256
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0                       0
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                22,698                 189,394
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              (22,698)               (189,694)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0                       0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (22,698)               (189,394)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (22,698)               (189,394)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0                       0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                       0
<page> EXHIBIT 32.02

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF 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 Morgan Stanley Charter
WCM L.P. (the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Christian
Angstadt, Chief Financial Officer of Demeter Management
Corporation, the general partner of the Partnership, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
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 Partnership.









By: /s/ Christian Angstadt

Name:	   Christian Angstadt
Title:  Chief Financial Officer of Demeter Management Corporation,
		   the general partner of the Partnership

Date:   August 13, 2008
Making cleaning solution from 2.6% liquid bleach

CHLORA

Mix 4 parts water with 1 part 

household bleach (2.6% chlora) 

every day. 

Pour STRONG chlorine water onto 

clean cloth.

Put soaked cloth on top of spill. Let sit for 15 minutes. 

Then clean up and throw in waste bag. 

Making hand washing solution from liquid bleach

This MILD solution can be made from mixing 1 part 

STRONG solution with 9 parts water every day. 

Use the MILD chlorine water to wash hands.

Do NOT drink chlorine water. 

Do NOT put chlorine water in mouth or eyes.

Before starting, put 

on your gown, mask, 

face shield, and two 

pairs of gloves.

Use the MILD chlorine water to wash hands.

Make new MILD chlorine water every day.

Use the STRONG chlorine water to clean floors, latrines, tables, and mats touched with blood, 

vomit, poo-poo, pee-pee, snot, spit, or sweat. Make new STRONG chlorine water every day.

U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

November 12, 2014 CS251658-B
No. 11-7260.

#### Mark David Branon, aka Mark Branon, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 1098, 132 S. Ct. 859,

181 L. Ed. 2d 560,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8878.

December 12, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.