alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

FORT WAYNE DIVISION 

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) 

 ) 

 v. ) CASE NO.: 1:15-CR-39-TLS-1 

 ) 

KAYDEAN GEIST ) 

 

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

 This matter is before the Court on the Findings and Recommendation of the United States 

Magistrate Judge [ECF No. 30], filed on April 14, 2016. The Defendant has waived objection to 

the Findings and Recommendation, and the Court, being duly advised, adopts the Findings and 

Recommendation [ECF No. 30] in its entirety and accepts the recommended disposition. Subject 

to this Court’s consideration of the Plea Agreement pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal 

Procedure 11(c), the plea of guilty to the offense charged in Count One (1) of the Information is 

hereby accepted, and the Defendant is adjudged guilty of such offense. 

 The notice of sentencing and pre-sentence scheduling deadlines will be issued by separate 

order.

SO ORDERED on April 29, 2016. 

 s/ Theresa L. Springmann 

 THERESA L. SPRINGMANN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
<PAGE>

                                                            Exhibit 10.14

                                January 21, 1999

OrthoLogic Corporation
1275 West Washington Street
Tempe, AZ 85281

Ladies and Gentlemen:

         By this Letter of Amendment (the "LOA") it is understood that
OrthoLogic Corp., ("OrthoLogic") and Chrysalis BioTechnology, Inc. ("Chrysalis")
agree to modify their original Definitive Agreement regarding the TP508 (or
Chrysalin) technology ("Technology") for orthopedic applications signed by the
two parties as of December 31, 1997 and amended on September 23, 1998 (the
"Agreement"). The parties agree to amend the Agreement as follows:

         1.       Extension of Worldwide Fracture Application License Option.
Chrysalis and OrthoLogic agree to extend the exercise date for the option for
worldwide (excluding the United States) rights for fracture applications
described in Section IV(b) of the Definitive Agreement until on or before June
30, 1999.

         2.       Linking of International Rights. The worldwide (excluding the
United States) option for fracture applications as described in Section IV(b) of
the Definitive Agreement and the worldwide (excluding the United States) option
for other Orthopedic Applications as defined in Section IV(d) of the Definitive
Agreement, can no longer be exercised independently. Therefore, if OrthoLogic
determines to proceed, it shall pay $1.25 million on or before June 30, 1999 for
the rights to all Orthopedic Applications worldwide (excluding the United
States).

         3.       Other Payments. All other payments due to Chrysalis will be
made by OrthoLogic by the dates specified in the Definitive Agreement. The
timing and amounts of all other milestone payments shall remain unchanged.

         4.       Limited Modification. Except as modified herein, all terms and
conditions of the original Definitive Agreement shall remain in full force and
effect.

         5.       Counterparts. This LOA may be executed by facsimile or manual
signatures. It may be executed in several counterparts, each of which shall be
deemed an original, but such counterparts shall together constitute one
agreement.

                                            Chrysalis BioTechnology, Inc.

                                            By:  /s/ Darrell H. Carney
                                                 -------------------------------
                                                 Darrell H. Carney, Ph.D.
                                                 Title:  President

<PAGE>

OrthoLogic Corporation
January 21, 1999
Page 2

                                   ACCEPTANCE

         The foregoing LOA correctly sets forth our agreement concerning the
Amendments to the Definitive Agreement.

Dated:  January 27, 1999

                                      OrthoLogic Corporation

                                      By: /s/ Thomas R. Trotter
                                          -------------------------------------
                                          Thomas R. Trotter
                                          Title:  President/CEO
Exhibit 32





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





The undersigned have executed this certification in connection with the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ending June 30, 2012.  The undersigned hereby certify that to our 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 Company.








Dated:    March 22, 2013





/s/ Fred Zolla


Fred Zolla


President and Chief Executive Officer





/s/ Thomas J Owens


Thomas J Owens


Interim Chief Financial Officer
### MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-08-00440-CR Adam Alexander MARTINEZ , Appellant

v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 290th Judicial Distri ct Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2008-CR-4151W Honorable Pat Priest, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM Sitting: Alma L. López, Chief Justice Rebecca Simmons, Justice Steven C. Hilbig, Justice Delivered and Filed: August 6, 2008
DISMISSED The trial court’s certification in this appeal st ates that the case is a “plea-bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” Rule 25.2( d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provides, “[t]he appeal must be dismissed if a certification that shows the defendant has a right of appeal has not been made part of the record under these rules.” T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.2(d). Appellant’s counsel filed a writte n notice with this court that counsel reviewed the record and “can find no right of appeal for Appellant.” We construe this notice as an indication that04-08-00440-CR
appellant will not seek to file an amended trial c ourt certification showing th at he has the right of appeal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.2(d); 37.1; see also Daniels v. State , 110 S.W.3d 174, 177 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, no pet.). In light of th e record presented, we agree with appellant’s counsel that Rule 25.2(d) requires this court to dismiss this appeal . Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.
PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH

2
COASTAL PACIFIC MINING CORP.





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 Annual Report of Coastal Pacific Mining Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Joseph Bucci, as Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, hereby 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; and





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





Date:  November 15, 2011
By:
/s/ Joseph BucciName:
Joseph BucciTitle:
Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Report pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code and, accordingly, is not being filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission as part of the Report and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made before or after the date of the Report, irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.)
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 99-2

SERVICER'S OFFICER CERTIFICATE


The undersigned Officer certifies the following for the 2003 fiscal year.

1.   I have reviewed the activities and performance of the Servicer during the
     preceding fiscal year under the terms of the applicable Sale and Servicing
     Agreement and Insurance and Indemnity Agreement and to the best of this
     Officer's knowledge, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its duties,
     responsibilities or obligations under these Agreements throughout such
     year.

2.   To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, no Special Event,
     Default of Event of Default (each as defined in the Agreements) has
     occurred.


/s/ Michael J. Pankey
---------------------------------------
         Michael J. Pankey
         Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

Date: March 30, 2004
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.19

                             FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE
                          MANAGEMENT SERVICES AGREEMENT

         THIS FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE MANAGEMENT SERVICES AGREEMENT dated August
12, 2002 is entered into and effective this 12th day of March, 2004 by and
between Luminex Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the "Company") and Thomas
W. Erickson ("Erickson").

         WHEREAS, the Company and Erickson desire to continue the management
services delivered pursuant to the Management Services Agreement dated August
12, 2002 (the "Agreement").

         NOW, THEREFORE, the parties execute this Fourth Amendment to the
Agreement:

         1.       The substantive terms, covenants and agreements shall continue
                  for a Term from April 1 through June 30, 2004. Notwithstanding
                  any other term of the Agreement, the Company shall be
                  permitted to terminate this Agreement upon ten (10) days prior
                  written notice in the event the Company hires a full-time
                  Chief Executive Officer.

         2.       Cash compensation shall continue at the same rate for
                  Erickson's services hereunder.

         3.       An additional option grant of 37,500 shares of the Company's
                  common stock shall be granted on the date of this agreement
                  pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Option Agreement
                  to be executed simultaneously herewith, in the form attached
                  hereto as Exhibit A (the "Option Agreement"). Notwithstanding
                  the foregoing, the exercise price per share shall be equal to
                  the closing sale price on the date of grant and vesting shall
                  occur in one third increments on the last day of each month of
                  April through June, 2004, all as set forth in the Option
                  Agreement.

         All other terms of the Agreement shall continue and all capitalized
terms not otherwise defined will have such meaning as set forth in the
Agreement.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Fourth Amendment is executed by the parties as
of the effective date set forth above.

LUMINEX CORPORATION                         Thomas W. Erickson


By: /s/ Harriss T. Currie                        /s/ Thomas W.  Erickson
    --------------------------------        -----------------------------------

Title: Chief Financial Officer

                              Luminex Confidential
#### WALZ, Appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

July 25, 1913.)

Action by Carl L. Walz, as administrator, etc., against the City of New York.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.

THOMAS, J., dissents.
Patrick CARIOU, petitioner, v. Richard PRINCE, et al.

No. 13-261.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 12, 2013.

Motion of New York Intellectual Property Law Association for leave to file a brief as *amicus curiae* granted. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-29-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1996
<CASH>                                         218,467
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               10,997,641
<ALLOWANCES>                                   666,164
<INVENTORY>                                 11,930,934
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            22,739,779
<PP&E>                                       4,138,211
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,616,834
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              27,586,445
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       11,635,365
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       103,716
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,772,411
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                27,586,445
<SALES>                                     44,029,682
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                       35,540,071
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               35,540,071
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             440,060
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,116,755
<INCOME-TAX>                                    31,840
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,084,915
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,084,915
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .10
        

</TABLE>
#### FLANAGAN, Appellant, v. STREETON, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 11, 1907.)

Action by Thomas P. Flanagan against George H. Streeton.

No opinion. Judgment of the Municipal Court affirmed, with costs.
#### LE MANQUAIS, Respondent, v. CARR, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

January 10, 1899.)

Action by Earnest R. Le Manquais against Alfred Carr.

No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.
EXHIBIT 32.2

      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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

I, Zong Yun Zhou, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
Report of SORL AUTO PARTS, INC. on Form 10-QSB/A for the fiscal quarter ended
September 30, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in
such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A fairly presents in all material respects
the financial condition and results of operations of SORL AUTO PARTS, INC.


                                        By: /s/  Zong Yun Zhou
                                            ---------------------------------
                                        Name:      Zong Yun Zhou
                                        Title:     Chief Financial Officer
November 29, 2004
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

SOUTH BEND DIVISION 

NANCY ISLAS, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

v. ) Cause No. 3:12-CV-845-WCL-CAN 

 ) 

NEW ENGLAND COMPOUNDING ) 

PHARMACY, INC. a/k/a NEW ) 

ENGLAND COMPOUNDING CENTER; ) 

AMERIDOSE, LLC; ALAUNUS ) 

PHARMACEUTICAL, LLC; BARRY ) 

CADDEN; LISA CADDEN; ) 

and GREGORY CONIGLIARO, ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

NOTICE OF STAY BY REASON OF BANKRUPTCY

 The defendant, New England Compounding Pharmacy, Inc. d/b/a New England 

Compounding Center (“NECC”), hereby notifies the Court that NECC filed a voluntary petition 

under Chapter 11 of Title 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code in the United States 

Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts (Eastern Division) No. 12-19882-HJB. 

Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(a), all actions against NECC are stayed. 

LEWIS WAGNER LLP 

By: /s/ Dina M. Cox 

DINA M. COX, #18590-49 

KAMEELAH SHAHEED-DIALLO, #28058-49 

ROBERT M. BAKER IV, #25471-49 

 Attorneys for Defendant, New England 

Compounding Pharmacy, Inc. 

 

case 3:12-cv-00845-WCL-CAN document 8 filed 12/27/12 page 1 of 2
2 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing has been filed with the Clerk of the Court 

on December 27, 2012 using the CM/ECF system which sent notification of this filing to the 

following: 

Douglas A. Mulvaney 

Stutsman & Mulvaney 

1300 Cassopolis Street 

P.O. Box 1337 

Elkhart, Indiana 46515 

/s/ Dina M. Cox 

 DINA M. COX 

LEWIS WAGNER, LLP 

501 Indiana Avenue, Suite 200 

Indianapolis, IN 46202 

Phone: (317) 237-0500 

FAX: (317) 630-2790 

dcox@lewiswagner.com Q:\NECC\13 - Islas\Federal Court Action\Notice of Stay_Bankruptcy.docx

case 3:12-cv-00845-WCL-CAN document 8 filed 12/27/12 page 2 of 2
#### Oppenheim & Macnow, P. C., Respondent, v Ellen M. Worth, Appellant. —

Order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Arthur E. Blyn, J.), entered on or about March 6,1984, which denied defendant’s motion to vacate the default and assessed attorney’s fees in the sum of $2,000 to be paid personally by counsel for defendant, is modified, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, to the extent of reducing the amount of the attorney’s fees to $1,000, and otherwise affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

An examination of the record herein indicates that $1,000 in attorney’s fees to be paid personally by counsel for defendant is an appropriate assessment. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Ross, Carro and Milonas, JJ.
#### HART, Appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 18, 1907.)

Action by Charles Hart against the city of New York.

No opinion. Judgment modified, by striking out the words “on the merits,” and, as modified, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Patricia MARTINEZ, petitioner, v. Michael MARTINEZ, et al.

No. 13-5528.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 2, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
EXHIBIT 12.2

Certification by the Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002

I, Dora Li, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Noah Education Holdings Ltd. (the Company);

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The Companys other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Company and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures,
or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the
Companys disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the Companys internal control over financial reporting that occurred
during the period covered by this annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Companys internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The Companys other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
the Companys auditors and the audit committee of the Companys board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Company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 a significant role in the Companys internal control over financial reporting.

Date: November 17, 2008



|       |  |                        
|------ |  | -----------------------
|By:    |  | /s/ Dora Li            
|Name:  |  | Dora Li                
|Title: |  | Chief Financial Officer
# United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 18-3037

___________________________ Valerie LeMaster lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v. Ditech Financial LLC, formerly known as Green Tree Servicing LLC; Federal National Mortgage Association; Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees

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

____________ Submitted: September 25, 2019 Filed: April 15, 2020 [Unpublished]

____________ Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM. Since our stay of this appeal as to the Federal National Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae”) and Ditech Financial, LLC (“Ditech”) in light of Ditech’s commencement of bankruptcy proceedings, the bankruptcy court confirmed the bankruptcy plan. The plan includes a permanent injunction of claims that “interferewith the implementation or consummation of the Plan.” The parties dispute whether

the claims against Fannie Mae and Ditech are barred by the injunction. But even if the claims are not barred by the injunction, we affirm the dismissal of LeMaster’s federal claims for lack of standing, see LeMaster v. Ditech Fin. LLC , 782 F. App’x 519 (8th Cir. 2019) (per curiam), and thus lack supplemental jurisdiction over LeMaster’s state law claims against Fannie Mae and Ditech, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367; ABF Freight Sys., Inc. v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters , 645 F.3d 954, 958 (8th Cir. 2011) (“[I]f a plaintiff lacks standing to sue, the district court has no subject-matter jurisdiction.”); 8th Cir. R. 47B. We thus affirm the district court and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

______________________________

-2-
Luis T.J. LEAL, Sr., petitioner, v. OHIO SECRETARY OF STATE.

No. 12-10914.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 9, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.