alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Federal Register: June 18, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 117)]
[Notices]
[Page 34141]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr18jn04-72]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

Time and Date: 11 a.m., Friday, July 9, 2004.

Place: 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC 9th Floor Commission
Conference Room.

Status: Closed.

Matters to be Considered: Surveillance matters.

Contact Person for More Information: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.

Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 04-14001 Filed 6-16-04; 2:58 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```
```

[Federal Register: May 4, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 85)]
[Notices]
[Page 24531]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr04my98-59]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

TIME AND DATE: 11:00 a.m., Friday, May 22, 1998.
PLACE: 1155 21st St., N.W., Washington, D.C., 9th Floor Conference
Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Surveillance Matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.
Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 98-11828 Filed 4-30-98; 10:29 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```

----

**======== RETURN TO INDEX    ========**

----
----

----

|   | (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 fully presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations or the      Company. |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                     |                         |                     |
|--------------------------|------------------------------|--------------------------|
| Date:      June 16, 2008 | By:                          | /s/ Allan      Reeh |
|                     | Allan      Reeh              |
|                     | Chief      Executive Officer |
|                     | Chief      Financial Officer |

----

----
#### In the Matter of Max Geshwind, Deceased. David M. Geshwind, Appellant; Frank Geshwind, Respondent.

[874 NYS2d 810]

— In a probate proceeding in which David M. Geshwind petitioned pursuant to SCPA 1809 to determine the validity of a claim against the estate of the decedent Max Geshwind, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Nassau County (Riordan, S.), dated October 29, 2007, which, upon a decision of the same court dated September 26, 2007, granted the motion of Frank B. Geshwind, as executor of the decedent’s estate, for summary judgment denying the petitioner’s claims and denied the petitioner’s cross motion for partial summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In response to the respondent’s prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the petitioner’s claim to a share of the decedent’s personal property, the petitioner failed to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact *(see Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]; *Matter of Goodman v Estate of Druck,*33 AD3d 702 [2006]; *Matter of Casessa,*298 AD2d 518, 519 [2002]). The petitioner’s claim that the respondent effected an inter vivos gift of the decedent’s personal property is without merit *(see Kaplan v Levin,*276 AD2d 528 [2000]; *Bausch v Slone,*163 AD2d 349 [1990]). The petitioner’s claim for contribution from his father’s estate for amounts he was surcharged while he and his father were co-executors of his mother’s estate is barred by the doctrine of res judicata *(see Schuylkill Fuel Corp. v Nieberg Realty Corp.,*250 NY 304, 306-307 [1929]; *Matter of G.J. DiBenedetto, M.D., P.C., Retirement Trust v Nationwide Assoc.,*297 AD2d 740, 741 [2002]). Rivera, J.P., Spolzino, Ritter and Miller, JJ., concur.
```

[Federal Register: October 5, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 193)]
[Notices]
[Page 58806]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr05oc06-38]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Notice of Sunshine Act Meeting

Agency Holding the Meeting: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

Time and Date: 10:30 a.m., Wednesday, October 25, 2006.

Place: 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Conference Room.

Status: Closed.

Matters to be Considered: Rule Enforcement Review.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eileen A. Donovan, 202-418-5100.

Eileen A. Donovan,
Acting Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 06-8533 Filed 10-3-06; 11:13 am]

BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```
EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Andrew A. Sauter, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 2 to Annual Report on Form 10-K/A ofAvigen, Inc.;

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; and

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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report.

|Date: October
      23, 2007 | /s/ Andrew A. Sauter          | 
|---------------------------- | ----------------------------- | 
|                             | Andrew A.
      Sauter        | 
|                             | Vice
      President, Finance | 

---
IV 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1214 

Recognizing and commending Viola Liuzzo for her extraordinary courage 

and for her contribution to the United States. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 24, 2010 

Mr. CARSON of Indiana (for himself and Mr. CONYERS) submitted the 

following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing and commending Viola Liuzzo for her extraordinary courage and for her contribution to the United 

States. 

Whereas Viola Liuzzo, a White woman from desegregated 

Michigan, courageously volunteered to assist the ongoing 

civil rights movement in Alabama in 1965; 

Whereas Viola Liuzzo knowingly risked her life in an effort 

to ensure that every United States citizen be given the 

right to vote; 

Whereas Viola Liuzzo participated in the March 12, 1965, 

civil rights protest at Wayne State University; 

Whereas Viola Liuzzo traveled to Selma, Alabama, in March 

of 1965 to take part in the upcoming march to the State 

capital in Montgomery; 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 1214 IH 

Whereas, shortly after the civil rights march from Selma to 

Montgomery, Alabama, on March 25, 1965, Viola Liuzzo 

was murdered by members of the Klu Klux Klan because 

of her efforts to ensure that every United States citizen 

be given the right to vote; 

Whereas the Voting Rights Act of 1965 finally ensured that 

all people in the United States can exercise their constitutionally guaranteed right to vote; and 

Whereas Viola Liuzzo’s civil rights work and her martyrdom 

hastened the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965: 

Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives recog2 nizes and commends Viola Liuzzo for her extraordinary 

3 courage and for her contribution to ensuring that the 

4 United States is a Nation ‘‘with liberty and justice for 

5 all’’. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 23.1

Consent of Independent Accountants

To
the Board of Directors
CenterSpan Communications Corp.:

We
consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement (Nos. 333-40323, 333-57521 and 333-59610) on Form S-8 and registration
statement (Nos. 333-55554, 333-73333 and 333-86825) on Form S-3 of CenterSpan Communications Corp. and subsidiaries of our report dated
March 27, 2001, except as to note 15 which is dated August 17, 2001, with respect to the consolidated statements of operations, shareholders' equity and cash flows of CenterSpan
Communications Corp. and subsidiaries for the two years in the period ended December 31, 2000, which report appears in the December 31, 2000 Form 10-K/A-2
of CenterSpan Communications Corp. filed on or about August 21, 2001.

As
discussed in Note 15 to the consolidated financial statements, the Company reclassified $2.5 million as research and engineering expense in 1999 due to the correction of an error in
the application of an accounting principle.



Portland,
Oregon
August 21, 2001

---

QuickLinks
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 Republic Airways Holdings Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Bryan K. Bedford, President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:





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





(ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the end of, and for the period covered by, the Report.








By:/s/ Bryan K. BedfordPresident, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the BoardApril 30, 2012
Second Amendment To Restated And Amended Purchase Agreement



 Exhibit 10.2 
  
 SECOND AMENDMENT TO RESTATED AND AMENDED PURCHASE AGREEMENT 
  
 This Second Amendment to Restated and Amended Purchase Agreement
(“Second Amendment”) is effective as of the 14th day of September, 2005, by TRADEMARK PROPERTY
COMPANY, a Texas corporation (“Purchaser”), and THE KIRK & BLUM MANUFACTURING COMPANY, an Ohio corporation (“Seller”). 
  
 WITNESSETH: 
  
 WHEREAS, Seller and Purchaser entered into that certain Restated and Amended Purchase Agreement dated June 20, 2005, as amended by that certain
First Amendment to Restated and Amended Purchase Agreement dated July 15, 2005 (as amended, the “Agreement”), covering the sale of two (2) separate parcels of land, as more particularly described therein (unless otherwise defined
herein, all defined terms in this Second Amendment will have the same meaning as in the Agreement); and 
  
 WHEREAS, Section 5 of the Agreement provides that the Closing of Parcel A must occur on or before July 15, 2005, subject to Purchaser’s right
to extend such closing for up to three (3) thirty (30) day periods (“First”, “Second”, and “Third Extensions”, respectively); 
  
 WHEREAS, Purchaser has previously exercised its First and Second Extensions and has paid Seller Extension Fees of
$50,000.00 for each extension; 
  
 WHEREAS, Purchaser
desires to exercise its Third Extension right; 
  
 WHEREAS,
Seller has agreed to extend the Third Extension so that after Purchaser exercises the Third Extension, the Closing of Parcel A must occur on or before October 31, 2005; and 
  
 WHEREAS, Seller and Purchaser desire to enter into this Second Amendment to evidence their agreement regarding the
foregoing matters; 
  
 NOW, THEREFORE, for good and
valuable consideration — which the parties acknowledge receiving — 
 Seller and Purchaser hereby agree as follows: 
  
 1. By its execution of this Second Amendment, Purchaser
hereby exercises the Third Extension. 
  
 2.
Contemporaneously with Purchaser’s execution of this Second Amendment, Purchaser is delivering to Seller $75,000.00 as the Extension Fee for the Third Extension. 
  
 3. Purchaser’s exercise of the Third Extension will extend the Closing of Parcel A until on or before
October 31, 2005, notwithstanding anything in the Agreement to the contrary. 
  
 Except as specifically modified by the terms of this Second Amendment, all of the terms and provisions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect and unmodified and are hereby ratified by the parties.

  
 This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts,
each of which will be an original, and all of which — when taken together — will constitute one (1) document. Facsimile signatures will be treated as original signatures for all purposes hereunder. 







 EFFECTIVE as of the day and year first above written. 
  

			
	THE KIRK & BLUM MANUFACTURING
	COMPANY, an Ohio corporation
		
	By:	 	  


	Name:	 	  


	Its:	 	  


	
	TRADEMARK PROPERTY COMPANY,
	a Texas corporation
		
	By:	 	  


	Name:	 	  


	Its:	 	  




  

 2
```

[Federal Register: November 18, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 222)]
[Notices]
[Page 67545]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr18no04-27]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

TIME AND DATE: 11 a.m., Friday, December 17, 2004.

PLACE: 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission
Conference Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Surveillance Matters.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jean A. Webb, (202) 418-5100.

Catherine D. Daniels,
Assistant Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 04-25677 Filed 11-16-04; 10:29 am]

BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```
#### Thomas E. O’Brien et al., Respondents, and J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., et al., Appellants, v Town of Huntington et al., Respondents.

Submitted April 12, 2010;

decided June 17, 2010

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
CIRCUIT COURT OF ARLINGTON COUNTY

#### Clarence A. Robinson, Sr. v. Board of Trustees of Macedonia Baptist Church

March 28, 1991

Case No. (Law) 90-1095

By JUDGE BENJAMIN N. A. KENDRICK

Plaintiff alleges in his Motion for Judgment and in his Response to Motion for Bill of Particulars that he and defendant Board of Trustees entered into an oral agreement on January 4, 1972, where defendant agreed to provide plaintiff with a housing allowance of $4,800.00 per year. Plaintiff also contends that a written employment agreement was entered into by him and defendant on January 28, 1972. First, plaintiff alleges in his Motion for Judgment that the oral agreement modified the written employment agreement. However, in his Response to Motion for Bill of Particulars, plaintiff asserts that the oral agreement to provide plaintiff with a housing allowance was a separate agreement made on January 4, 1972, twenty-four days before the employment agreement was signed.

The appropriate statute of limitations to be applied to an oral agreement is three years after the cause of action accrued. Virginia Code § 8.01-246(4). Plaintiff alleges that defendant trustees owe him a $4,800.00 per year housing allowance beginning from January, 1972. After the end of each year, under plaintiff’s claim, defendant trustees owed to plaintiff $4,800.00 if that sum had not been paid to him already during the year. Therefore, plain*325tiff’s cause of action accrued at the end of each year when the $4,800.00 was due and owing. This court finds that plaintiff’s cause of action is barred by the statute of limitations until three years next preceding the commencement of this action, that is, until August 24, 1987.
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

I, Peter Wardle, the Chief Executive and Chief Financial Officer of Protosource
Corporation (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my
knowledge:

(1)  the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the fiscal year ended
     December 31, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
     Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
     78m or 78o(d)); 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: November 14, 2006



                                                  /s/ PETER WARDLE
                                                  ----------------
                                                  Name: Peter Wardle
                                                  Title: Chief Executive and
                                                  Chief Financial Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Alfonso LOPEZ-MORALES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-40133.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Sept. 11, 2008.

*345James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendantr-Appellant.

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

*ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES*

PER CURIAM: *

The Supreme Court vacated our judgment in *United States v. Lopez-Morales,*256 Fed.Appx. 726 (2007), and remanded this matter for further consideration in the light of *Gall v. United States,*— U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). *Lopez-Morales v. United States,*-U.S.-, 128 S.Ct. 2933, 171 L.Ed.2d 862 (2008).

In our first decision, we rejected Lopez’ assertions that the district court had erroneously applied a presumption of reasonableness to the advisory guidelines sentencing range and had failed to give adequate weight to the sentencing factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). We held: that “[t]he district court’s remarks at sentencing show that Lopez’s sentence was the result of a balancing of the proper factors, including the guidelines and the considerations of § 3553(a)”; and that the presumption-of-reasonableness issue, as conceded by Lopez, was foreclosed by *Rita v. United States,*— U.S.-, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2462, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007). 256 Fed.Appx. at 726.

In *Gall,*the Supreme Court held: courts of appeals may not use a rigid, mathematical formula in reviewing a district court’s decision to depart from the properly-calculated guidelines sentencing range, nor may they require a district court to show extraordinary circumstances to depart from that range. 128 S.Ct. at 595. The Court further held: district court sentencing decisions are subject to abuse-of-diseretion review; and courts of appeals may afford a presumption of reasonableness to sentences within a properly-calculated guidelines sentencing range. *Id.*at 597.

Subsequent to remand, the parties were instructed to file briefs addressing the impact, if any, of *Gall*on this *346matter. Lopez essentially repeats his original contentions that the district court applied an erroneous presumption of reasonableness to the guidelines sentencing range, an assertion we have already rejected and that is unaffected by *Gall*Lopez also appears to contend that the district court’s reliance on the eontrolled-sub-stance guidelines was error because of the Supreme Court’s decision in *Kimbrough v. United States,*— U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 558, 169 L.Ed.2d 481 (2007). In any event, that issue was not raised in Lopez’ appeal here and is not within the scope of the remand from the Supreme Court.

AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
China Power Technology, Inc.: Exhibit 10.1 - Filed by newsfilecorp.com






Exhibit 10.1

AMENDMENT NUMBER 1 TO SECURITIES PURCHASE AGREEMENT

     THIS AMENDMENT NUMBER 1 TO
SECURITIES PURCHASE AGREEMENT, dated as of September 19, 2010 (this
“Amendment”), is entered into by and among China Power Technology, Inc.,
a Nevada corporation (collectively with its predecessors, the “Company”)
and the Investors. Capitalized terms used herein but not otherwise defined
herein shall have the respective meanings set forth in the Securities Purchase
Agreement (as defined below). 

BACKGROUND 

     The Company and the Investors are
parties to that certain Securities Purchase Agreement, dated as of June 16, 2010
(the “Securities Purchase Agreement”). The Investors understand that
certain underwriters (the “Underwriters”) propose to enter into an
underwriting agreement with the Company providing for the public offering (the
“Public Offering”) by the Company of shares of Common Stock of the
Company. To induce the Underwriters that may participate in the Public Offering
to continue their efforts in connection with the Public Offering, and for other
good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby
acknowledged, the parties to this Amendment wish to amend certain provisions of
the Securities Purchase Agreement as set forth in this Amendment.

     Section 6.4 of the Securities
Purchase Agreement provides that no provisions of the Securities Purchase
Agreement may be waived or amended except in a written instrument signed by the
Company and the Requisite Holders. This Amendment constitutes a written
agreement signed by the necessary parties in order to effectuate the amendments
to the Securities Purchase Agreement specified below.

     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration
of the foregoing and the respective covenants and agreements set forth herein,
the parties hereto agree as follows: 

     Section 1. Section 4.15 is
hereby deleted in its entirety and the obligations arising thereunder are hereby
rescinded and of no further force or effect; and in its place the following new
Section 4.15 is hereby inserted: 

     “Section 4.15. [Reserved].” 

     Section 2. Except as
amended hereby, the Securities Purchase Agreement shall remain in full force and
effect.

     Section 3. This Amendment
may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an
original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same
instrument. 

1 




     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties
hereto have caused this Amendment to be duly executed by their respective
authorized signatories as of the date first indicated above. 

COMPANY: 

CHINA POWER TECHNOLOGY,
INC.

By: /s/ Honghai
Zhang           
 
Name: Honghai Zhang 
Title: Chief Executive Officer 

REQUISITE HOLDERS: 

SUN FOREVER LIMITED

By: /s/ Gang
Wang                 
 
Name: Gang Wang 
Title: Managing Partner 

 

Signature Page to the Amendment to Securities Purchase
Agreement