alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
AMENDMENT TO REGISTRATION RIGHTS AGREEMENT


 


This Amendment to the Registration Rights
Agreement is dated as of April 12, 2012 (the “Effective Date”), and is entered into by and between Micro Imaging
Technology, Inc., a corporation organized under the laws of California, USA, with its principal executive office at 970 Calle Amanecer,
Suite F, San Clemente, California 92673 (the “Company”), and Dutchess Opportunity Fund, II, LP, a Delaware Limited
Partnership, with its principal office at 50 Commonwealth Avenue, Suite 2, Boston, MA 02116 (the “Investor”).


 


The Company and the Investor entered into
that certain Registration Rights Agreement (the “Agreement”) on May 4, 2010.


 


The Company and the Investor now desire
to amend the terms of the Agreement as more particularly set forth below:


 


		1.	The 125,000,000 limitation on maximum
number of shares set forth in the Agreement is hereby amended to be 500,000,000.



 


		2.	Except as specifically modified and amended herein, all of the terms,
provisions, requirements and specifications contained in the Agreement remain in full force and effect. Except as otherwise expressly
provided herein, the parties do not intend to, and the execution of this Amendment shall not, in any manner impair the Agreement,
the purpose of this Amendment being simply to amend and ratify the Agreement, as hereby amended and ratified, and to confirm and
carry forward the Agreement, as hereby amended, in full force and effect.



 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company and the Investor have executed
and delivered this Amendment effective as of the Effective Date set forth above.


		 	 	 
	 	DUTCHESS OPPORTUNITY FUND, II, LP
	 	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ Douglas H. Leighton	 
	 	Douglas H. Leighton
	 	Managing Member of:
	 	Dutchess Capital Management, II, LLC
	 	General Partner to:
	 	Dutchess Opportunity Fund, II, LP
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	MICRO IMAGING TECHNOLOGY, INC.
	 	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ Michael W. Brennan	 
	 	Michael W. Brennan, Chief Executive Officer
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ Victor A. Hollander 	 
	 	Victor A. Hollander, Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT  23


INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


We consent to the  incorporation  by reference  in  Registration  Statement  No.
33-55179  of Koger  Equity,  Inc.  on Form S-3 and  Registration  Statement  No.
33-54617 of Koger  Equity,  Inc. on Form S-3 of our report  dated March 4, 1996,
appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Koger Equity,  Inc. for the year
ended December 31, 1995.





DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Jacksonville, Florida
March 13, 1996

































                                       64

<PAGE>
No. 09-8807.

#### Derek A. Waithe, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 986, 130 S. Ct. 1725,

176 L. Ed. 2d 204,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 1962.

March 1, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**
**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 Alion Science and Technology Corporation (the“Corporation”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John M. Hughes, Chief Financial Officerof the Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of 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) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Corporation.
Date: June 13, 2005    By: /s/ John M. Hughes   Name: John M. Hughes Title: Chief Financial Officer
URI-3.31.2012-Ex 10g






Exhibit 10(g)


FOURTH AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


THIS FOURTH AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”), is made and entered into as of the 28 day of March 2012, by and between United Rentals, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and William B. Plummer, a resident of the State of Connecticut (“Executive”).
RECITALS
WHEREAS, the Company and Executive previously entered into an Employment Agreement, dated as of December 1, 2008, which was subsequently amended effective as of December 30, 2008, December 1, 2008 and December 22, 2011 (as so amended, the “Agreement”); and
WHEREAS, on March 8, 2012, the Compensation Committee of the Company's Board of Directors determined to increase the amount of Severance Pay to which Executive shall be entitled in the event Executive's employment is terminated by the Company without Cause or by Executive for Good Reason; and
WHEREAS, the Company and Executive desire to amend the Agreement to reflect such increase.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreement contained herein, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:
		
	1.
	Pursuant to and in accordance with Section 7(l) of the Agreement, the first sentence of Section 4(d)(iii) of the Agreement is hereby amended and replaced in full with the following language:


“(iii) an amount equal to 190% of Executive's Base Salary as of the date of termination, payable in substantially equal bi-weekly installments during the 12-month period following the date of Executive's termination in accordance with the Company's normal payroll practices (the “Severance Pay”).”
		
	2.
	Except as expressly amended hereby, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect in accordance with its terms.


		
	3.
	Capitalized terms used herein but not defined herein shall have the respective meanings assigned to such terms in the Agreement.


		
	4.
	This Amendment may be amended only by a writing which makes express reference to this Amendment as the subject of such amendment and which is signed by Executive and, on behalf of the Company, by its duly authorized officer.


		
	5.
	This Amendment shall be governed by and construed (both as to validity and performance) and enforced in accordance with the internal laws of the State of Connecticut applicable to agreements made and to be performed wholly within such jurisdiction, without regard to the principles of conflicts of law or where the parties are located at the time a dispute arises.


[Signature page follows.]









IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have duly executed this Amendment as of the date first written above.
	
		
	UNITED RENTALS, INC.




By:  /s/  Michael J. Kneeland
Name:Michael J.  Kneeland
Title:President and Chief Executive 
Officer
	EXECUTIVE




/s/ William B. Plummer
William B. Plummer
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING 

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED 

 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL 

 OF FLORIDA 

 SECOND DISTRICT 

SUSAN WINKLE, ) 

 ) 

 Appellant, ) 

 ) 

v. ) Case No. 2D13-2124 

 ) 

STATE OF FLORIDA, ) 

 ) 

 Appellee. ) 

________________________________ ) 

Opinion filed May 20, 2015. 

Appeal from the Circuit Court for 

Hillsborough County; Martha J. Cook, 

Judge. 

Ita M. Neymotin, Regional Counsel, and 

Walter A. Otto, Jr., Assistant Regional 

Counsel of Office of Criminal Conflict 

and Civil Regional Counsel, Tampa, for 

Appellant. 

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, for Appellee. 

PER CURIAM. 

 Affirmed without prejudice to any right the appellant might have to file a 

facially sufficient motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. 

NORTHCUTT, SILBERMAN, and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
##### 



EXHIBIT 99.1

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 IPC Acquisition Corp. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2002, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Greg Kenepp, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 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, as amended; and

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

| |                                                             
| | ------------------------------------------------------------
| | By: /s/ Greg Kenepp

Greg Kenepp
President
February 14, 2003
No. 09-8391.

#### Jacob Sampson, Petitioner v. Andrea France, et al.

559 U.S. 994, 130 S. Ct. 1743,

176 L. Ed. 2d 217,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2225,

March 8, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, denied.

Same case below, 384 Ill. App. 3d 1092, 362 Ill. Dec. 694, 973 N.E.2d 1090.
Montana Eighteenth Judicial District Court. County of Gallatin.

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, -vs- JERRY EDWARD DICKSON, Defendant.

CAUSE NO. DC-15-219

DECISION

On February 9, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to ten (10) years to the Montana State Prison with no time suspended for Count I: Leaving Scene of Vehicle Accident Involving Serious Bodily Injury to Another Person, a felony, in violation of §61-7-1-3, MCA, and ten (10) years to the Montana State Prison with no time suspended for Count II: Tampering with Physical Evidence, a felony, in violation of §45-7-207, MCA. The Court ordered that Count I and II run concurrently with each other and with the sentence imposed in Twentieth Judicial District Cause No. DC-12-027. Defendant was ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $2,373.81 plus $237.38 administrative fee. He was given credit for 196 days for time served.

On May 5, 2016, the Defendant’s Application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court (hereafter “the Division”).

The Defendant was present and was represented by Jennifer Streano of the Office of the State Public Defender. The State was not represented.

Before hearing the Application, the Defendant was advised that the *38Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also increase it. The Defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Division. The Defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he wished to proceed.

Done in open Court this 5th day of May, 2016.

DATED this 10th day of June, 2016.

Rule 12, Rules of the Sentence Review Division of the Supreme Court of Montana, provides that, “The sentence imposed by the District Court is presumed correct. The sentence shall not be reduced or increased unless it is clearly inadequate or clearly excessive.” (Section 46-18-904(3), MCA).

The Division finds that the reasons advanced for modification are insufficient to hold that the sentence imposed by the District Court is clearly inadequate or clearly excessive.

Therefore, it is the unanimous decision of the Division that the sentence is AFFIRMED.

Hon. Brenda Gilbert, Chairperson, Hon. Brad Newman, Member and Hon. Kathy Seeley, Member.
---

EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and in connection with this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Cortelco Systems Puerto Rico, Inc. ("Small business issuer") for the Six Months ended January 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned Juan Carlos Ramos, Chief Executive Officer, and Francisco Sanchez, Chief Financial Officer of small business issuer, hereby certify, 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 this report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of small business issuer.











Date: March 23, 2009

/s/   Juan Carlos RamosJuan Carlos Ramos
Chief Executive Officer









/s/   Francisco SanchezFrancisco Sanchez
Chief Financial Officer









---
Montana Fourth Judicial District Court. County of Missoula.

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, -vs- GREGORY ALAN THOMPSON, Defendant.

CAUSE NO. DC-15-500

DECISION

On January 27, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced as follows: Count I: Criminal Possession of Dangerous Drugs/Opiate, a felony, in violation of §45-9-102(4) MCA was dismissed; Count II: Tampering with or Fabricating Physical Evidence, a felony, in violation of §45-7-207, MCA, the Defendant was sentenced to the Department of Corrections for five (5) years with two (2) years suspended; Count III: Tampering with or Fabricating Physical Evidence, a felony, in violation of §45-7-207, MCA, the Defendant was sentenced to the Department of Corrections for five (5) years with two (2) years suspended; Count IV: Criminal Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, a felony, in violation of §45-10-103, MCA, the Defendant was sentenced to six (6) months in the Missoula County Detention Facility; Count V: Obstructing a Peace Officer or Other Public Servant, a misdemeanor, in violation of §45-7-302(1), the Defendant was sentenced to six (6) months in the Missoula County Detention Facility; and Count VI: Unauthorized Acquisition or Transfer of Food Stamps, a misdemeanor, in violation of §45-6-312(1), MCA was dismissed. The Defendant was ordered to pay a fine of $1,000 and $410 in surcharges. He was given credit for 159 days for time served.

On August 4, 2016, the Defendant’s Application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court (hereafter “the Division”).

The Defendant was present and was represented by Peter Ohman of the Office of the State Public Defender. The State was not represented.

Before hearing the Application, the Defendant was advised that the Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also increase it. The Defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Division. The Defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he wished to proceed.

*87Done in open Court this 4th day of August, 2016.

DATED this 24th day of August, 2016.

Rule 12, Rules of the Sentence Review Division of the Supreme Court of Montana, provides that, “The sentence imposed by the District Court is presumed correct. The sentence shall not be reduced or increased unless it is clearly inadequate or clearly excessive.” (Section 46-18-904(3), MCA).

The Division finds that the reasons advanced for modification are insufficient to hold that the sentence imposed by the District Court is clearly inadequate or clearly excessive.

Therefore, it is the unanimous decision of the Division that the sentence is AFFIRMED.

Hon. Brenda Gilbert, Chairperson, Hon. Kathy Seeley, Member and Hon. Brad Newman, Member.
QUALITY ASSURANCE REPRESENTATIVE’S CORRESPONDENCE

For use of this form see MEDCOM Sup 1 to AR 40-657, the proponent agency is MCCS-HV

1 TO: 2 FROM: (Name, address, ZIP Code, and office telephone number)

3. CONTRACT: ( P.O., OR O.I. NUMBER) 4. ITEM

5. PRIME CONTRACTOR: (NAME, ADDRESS AND ZIP CODE) 6. PLANT: (NAME, ADDRESS, AND ZIP CODE)

7. SIGNATURE OF QAR 8. DATE

MEDCOM Form 817, MAR 2010 Replaces DD Form 1232 PHC v1.00
No. 09-941.

#### David H. Disraeli, Petitioner v. Securities and Exchange Commission.

559 U.S. 1008, 130 S. Ct. 1914,

176 L. Ed. 2d 368,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2680.

March 22, 2010.

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

Same case below, 334 Fed. Appx. 334.
* 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 25, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-41393 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus MIGUEL MAYA-SANCHEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. B-02-CR-263-ALL

-------------------- Before DeMOSS, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Miguel Maya-Sanchez appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United Statesafter deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. MayaSanchez complains that his sentence was improperly enhanced pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) based on a prior conviction. Heargues that the sentencing provision is unconstitutional. MayaSanchez thus contends that his sentence should not exceed theNo. 02-41393 -2- two-year maximum term of imprisonment prescribed in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).
In Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. Maya-Sanchez acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres , but asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres
. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit , 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
##### 



EXHIBIT 99.1



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 TCI Solutions, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending
March 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Lance C.
Jacobs, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify to the best of my
knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 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.



|                      |  |     |  |                                        
|--------------------- |  | --- |  | ---------------------------------------
|Date: August 19, 2002 |  | By: |  | /s/  Lance C. Jacobs                   
|                      |  |     |  |                                        
|                      |  |     |  | Lance C. Jacobs
Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO EXCHANGE ACT RULE 13a-14(b) AND 18 U.S.C. §1350

In connection with the quarterly
report of Quantum Fuel Systems Technologies Worldwide, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended January 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, William B. Olson,
Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:



|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the dates and for the periods
indicated.
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for
purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act or otherwise subject to the liability of that section.

Date: March 12, 2009



/S/ WILLIAM B. OLSONWilliam B. OlsonChief Financial Officer and Treasurer
November 08, 2015

U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

Washington, DC 20590

EVE TeleSports LLC

Ryan Bell

27 West Adelaide Ave

Nashua, NH 03064

ryan.bell@evetelesports.com

Subject: EVE TeleSports Section 333 Exemption Supplement for FAA-2015-5368 to add additional sUAS

Re: FAA-2015-5368

Dear Sir or Madam:

Pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (the “Reform Act”) and 14

CFR Part 11, EVE TeleSports LLC, operator of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (sUAS), 

Commercial operator of sUAS, as described in Section 333 Exemption request FAA-2015-5368, submits this 

supplement to add the following sUAS aircraft to the applicants request for commercial sUAS operation.

 DJI S‐900/A2

 DJI Phantom 3 Professional

 DJI Inspire 1

 DJI F450

 DJI F550

Since the initial request for Section 333 approval, EVE TeleSports anticipates additional business opportunities 

specific to the operation of these DJI products. EVE TeleSports includes with this supplemental request, the user

manual for each sUAS, and a pilot operating handbook (POH). For illustrative purposes, the POH is populated with 

technical specifications and performance details specific to the DJI S-900 as it is largest of the listed sUAVs. The 

format and much of the content is applicable to operation of each of the sUAVs and this POH will be used as an 

operating guide and/or tailored as necessary for each sUAV. In general, when operating any sUAV, EVE TeleSports 

will adhere to the checklists, limitations, emergency procedures, setup suggestions, normal procedures, weight 

and balance, air vehicle systems, as well as service and maintenance specific to the model of sUAV being operated.

Thank you for your consideration,

Ryan Bell

General Manager

EVE TeleSports LLC