alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
MODIFICATION AGREEMENT TO
                                PROMISSORY NOTES

This  MODIFICATION  AGREEMENT is made as of December 1st, 2004 between  Infinite
Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation with offices at 595 Blossom Road, Suite 309,
Rochester,  NY 14610 ("Borrower") and Allan Robbins,  an individual  residing at
1575 Bayshore Boulevard, Rochester, NY 14622 (the "Lender").

WHEREAS,  THE Lender is the  holder of eight (8)  Convertible  Promissory  Notes
issued  by the  Borrower  to the  Lender,  as  described  in more  detail in the
attached Schedule A (collectively, the Notes); and

WHEREAS, the parties desire to modify the terms and conditions of the Promissory
Notes as follows:

NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:

      1)    The Notes and each of them are modified to provide that the time at
            which the entire principal balance and accrued interest shall be due
            and payable is January 1, 2007.

      2)    The Notes and each of them are modified to provide that the holder
            shall have the right in his sole discretion upon written notice to
            the Borrower at any time after September 1, 2005 to convert all or
            part of the principal amount of the Notes, together with accrued and
            unpaid interest, for common stock of the Borrower at the conversion
            rate of $.05 per share, as adjusted to reflect stock splits,
            distributions, recapitalizations, etc.

      3)    Except as modified by this Agreement, all of the terms, covenants
            and conditions of the Notes shall remain the same.

In witness  whereof,  Borrower and The Lender have executed this Agreement under
the day and year first written above.

INFINITE GROUP, INC.


-----------------------------------------
By: Michael S. Smith, President

---------------------------------
Allan Robbins


<PAGE>



             CONVERTIBLE PROMISSORY NOTES OF INFINITE GROUP, INC.

                            IN FAVOR OF ALLAN ROBBINS

Holder                      Principal Amt                       Date

Allan Robbins                  $  25,000                       2/25/03
Allan Robbins                  $  15,000                       4/15/03
Allan Robbins                  $  60,000                       4/25/03
Allan Robbins                  $  40,000                       5/22/03
Allan Robbins                  $  60,000                        7/2/03
Allan Robbins                  $  40,000                       12/4/03
Allan Robbins                  $    4,000                       1/2/04
Allan Robbins                  $  70,000                       2/26/04
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Pedro Nieblas, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

[801 NYS2d 102]

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed May 26, 2004, which ruled that claimant was *1194ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because he was unable to file a valid original claim for benefits pursuant to Labor Law § 527.

Claimant, a clerical aide for a municipal social services agency, was discharged from his employment on October 11, 2002 due to his prolonged absence from work as a result of his incarceration for an alleged parole violation. Upon his release from prison on October 2, 2003, claimant applied for unemployment insurance benefits by application effective October 20, 2003. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because he was unable to file a valid original claim and failed to comply with registration requirements. This appeal ensued.

Inasmuch as the record establishes that claimant did not have sufficient earnings in his base period or an alternative base period to qualify to file a valid original claim for benefits, substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision *(see*Labor Law §§ 520, 527; *Matter of Badrajan [Commissioner of Labor],*275 AD2d 830 [2000]). Furthermore, even if claimant’s application for benefits was backdated one year, his incarceration made him unavailable for work and, therefore, unable to satisfy the criteria for filing a valid original claim for benefits *(see*Labor Law § 527 [1] [a]; *Matter of Opoka [Sweeney],*232 AD2d 718, 719 [1996]).

Mercure, J.P., Crew III, Mugglin, Rose and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
Air Force

Army

Navy/Marines

Other Defense

19%

48%

21%

13%

$11.1

$12.1 $12.4

$11.0

$8.2 $6.8 $7.6 $8.1

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Army

Navy/Marines

Air Force

Other Defense

39%

19%

42%

0%

Construcon: 1%

Research and

 Development: 6%

Service: 17%

Supplies and

 Equipment: 75%

Acve Duty: 44%

Civilian: 21%

Naonal Guard/

Reserve: 35%

Raytheon

Boeing

Honeywell

Northrop Grumman

General Dynamics

TRAX Internaonal

Insight Enterprises

Orbital Sciences Corp.

Nammo

Patriarch Partners

$4.4 B

$1.9 B

$438.9 M

$258.5 M

$200.1 M

$88.0 M

$81.9 M

$68.8 M

$51.7 M

$46.6 M

Maricopa

Pima

Cochise

Yuma

Pinal

Coconino

Yavapai

Graham

Navajo

La Paz

County

15,144

13,593

6,889

5,494

967

484

222

54

52

ND

Total*

4,374

5,977

3,977

4,161

ND

14

12

ND

ND

ND

Acve Duty

   Military

2,336

2,707

2,687

1,241

214

49

ND

ND

ND

ND

Civilian

 FISCAL YEAR 2017

ARIZONA

   DEFENSE CONTRACTS

By Type

By Service

Top Defense Con ense Con ense Contractors (M=millions B=billions)

Contract Awards Performed (By Fiscal Year, Billions)

   DEFENSE PERSONNEL

Allocaons, By Type

Allocaons, By Service

$2.0 BILLION

TOTAL PAYROLL

$2.0 BILLION

TOTAL PAYROLL

43,361

TOTAL PERSONNEL

43,361

TOTAL PERSONNEL

Top Defense Personnel Loc sonnel Loc sonnel Locaons

*Total also includes unif al also includes uniformed Na ormed Naonal Guar onal Guard and R d and Reserve units. e units.

Data sources: DoD’s Defense Manpower Data Center; DoD’s Procurement and Acquision Policy; DoD’s Military Installaons, Ranges and Training Areas; USASpending.gov; U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis;

U.S. Census Bureau; and Unitedstateszipcodes.org.

Data sources: DoD’s Defense Manpower Data Center; DoD’s Procurement and Acquision Policy; DoD’s Military Installaons, Ranges and Training Areas; USASpending.gov; U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis;

U.S. Census Bureau; and Unitedstateszipcodes.org.

20 Oĸce of Economic Adjustment - Defense Spending by State, FY 2017
AF Actve AF Guard Army Actve Army Guard MC Actve

ARIZONA ARIZONA

#13 #12 2.5% $1,430 #10 #20 #21

$10.0 B

SPENT IN STATE

3.1% OF STATE GDP OF TOTAL U.S.

DEFENSE SPENDING

PER RESIDENT $8.1 B CONTRACT

SPENDING

43,361 NUMBER

OF PERSONNEL

$2.0 B PERSONNEL

SPENDING

TOP DEFENSE CONTRACT SPENDING LOCATIONS (K=thousands M=millions B=billions)

NEW MEXICO

Pima County

$4.6 B

Maricopa County

$3.6 B

Cochise County

$700.8 M

Yuma County

$187.5 M

Pinal County

$19.4 M

Coconino County

$5.8 M

Santa Cruz County

$5.0 M

Mohave County

$2.9 M

La Paz County

$1.1 M

Yavapai County

$514.1 K Pima

Maricopa

Cochise

Yuma Pinal

Coconino

Santa Cruz

Mohave

La Paz

Yavapai

TOP DEFENSE PERSONNEL SPENDING LOCATIONS (K=thousands M=millions)

NEW MEXICO

Pima County

$637.5 M

Maricopa County

$564.4 M

Cochise County

$431.8 M

Yuma County

$249.5 M

Pinal County

$21.8 M

Coconino County

$11.4 M

Yavapai County

$2.9 M

Navajo County

$584.6 K

Graham County

$437.6 K

Apache County

$208.1 K Pima

Maricopa

Cochise

Yuma

Pinal

Coconino

Yavapai

Navajo

Graham

Apache

Oĸce of Economic Adjustment - Defense Spending by State, FY 2017 21
EXHIBIT 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

         Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act 2002 (18 U.S.C.
1350), the undersigned, Cindy Lea Gimler, Chief Financial Officer of Puradyn
Filter Technologies Incorporated ("the Company") has executed this certification
in connection with the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the
Company's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2006 (the
"Report").

         The undersigned certifies 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 results of operation of the Company.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as
of the 2nd day of April 2007.

                                        /s Cindy Lea Gimler
                                        ------------------------------
                                        Name: Cindy Lea Gimler
                                        Title: Chief Financial Officer
                                        principal financial and
                                        accounting officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
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
|   | (1) | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities and 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      registrant. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | /s/ Larry M.      Wright                                 |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Larry      M. Wright                                                                                                                                                                                                     |
|   | Chief      Executive Officer                                                                                                                                                                                             |
|   | November      10, 2009                                                                                                                                                                                                   |
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-31100

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JORGE MARTINEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:02-CR-139-1

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jorge Martinez, federal prisoner # 22231-034, appeals the denial of his

motion to compel the government to move to reduce his sentence under Rule 35

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

September 1, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

Case: 10-31100 Document: 00511590692 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/01/2011
No. 10-31100

of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. He argued that the government

orally agreed to file such a motion for substantial assistance that he had provided after sentencing and that the government had refused to file the motion.

Neither party makes a jurisdictional challenge, but we must consider this

court’s and the district court’s jurisdictional basis. See United States v. Key, 205

F.3d 773, 774 (5th Cir. 2000). The district court has jurisdiction to correct or

modify Martinez’s sentence in limited circumstances under 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (b)

and (c). The applicable provision confers jurisdiction if the government moves

to reduce a sentence under Rule 35(b).

Assuming arguendo that a promise was made, the district court has jurisdiction to review the government’s refusal to file a Rule 35 motion only where

the defendant has made a substantial threshold showing that the government

has refused based on an “unconstitutional motive.” United States v. Sneed, 63

F.3d 381, 388 n.6 (5th Cir. 1995). Martinez did not allege or demonstrate any

unconstitutional motive that might have permitted the court to review the

refusal to file a Rule 35(b) motion. The motion to compel was thus “an unauthorized motion which the district court was without jurisdiction to entertain,”

because the “motion and situation do not fit any provision” of the Rule. United

States v. Early, 27 F.3d 140, 142 (5th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, we AFFIRM on

the alternative grounds that the district court lacked jurisdiction to grant the

motion. See id.

2

Case: 10-31100 Document: 00511590692 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/01/2011
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





In
connection with the Annual Report of Mooney Aerospace Group, Ltd. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of
the undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated below, hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his 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 30, 2005
    By
    /s/
      J. Nelson HappyJ.
      Nelson HappyVice
      Chairman, President &Chief
      Financial Officer and Secretary(Principal
      Executive Financial andAccounting
      Officer)
STATE of North Carolina v. Marvin Gene RAY.

No. 76P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 6, 2006.

Marvin Gene Ray, Pro Se.

Anne M. Middleton, Assistant Attorney General, Valerie M. Asbell, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 10th day of February 2006 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Bertie County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 6th day of April 2006."
Exhibit
31.2




CERTIFICATION





Pursuant
to Section 302 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002





I, Carol
Russell, certify that:





1.           I
have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Capital Beverage
Corporation;





2.           Based
on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual
report;





3.           Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this annual 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 annual report;





4.           I
am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15 and 15d-15) for the
registrant and I have:





a)           designed
such internal controls to ensure that material information relating to the
registrant and its  subsidiaries (collectively, the "Company") is made
known to me by others within the Company, particularly during the period in
which this annual report is being prepared;





b)           evaluated
the effectiveness of the registrant's internal controls as of a date within 90
days prior to the filing date of this annual report (the "Evaluation Date");
and





c)           presented
in this annual report my conclusions about  the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and  procedures based on my evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;





5.           I
have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors:





a)           all
significant deficiencies (if any) in the design or operation of internal
controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls;
and





b)           any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and





6.           I
have indicated in this annual report whether or not there were significant
changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect
internal controls subsequent to the date  of our most recent
evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant
deficiencies and material weaknesses.





Date: April 15,
      2009
            /s/
      Carol Russell


Carol
Russell


Treasurer
Exhibit No. EX-32.1

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIALOFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as created by Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Sovereign ExplorationAssociates International, Inc. (The "Company") hereby certifies, to suchofficers' knowledge, that:

 

(i) the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of theCompany for the year ended June 30, 2007 (the "Report") fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

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

 

Date: October 11, 2007                                                                    /s/ Robert D. Baca                                                                                                         Robert D. Baca                                                                                                         Chief Executive Officer

 

Date: October 11, 2007                                                                       /s/ Martin Thorp                                                                                                            Martin Thorp                                                                                                            Chief Financial Officer
## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 0 2 - 1 1 - 00 1 0 5 - CR

MICHAEL B O HANNAN APPELLANT
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

------------ FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT N O. 1 OF TARRANT COUNTY

------------ 

### OPINION

------------ A ppellant Michael Bohannan seeks to appeal the trial court’s dismissa l of charges filed against him. On March 30, 2011, w e notified Appellant and hi s counsel that it appears we lack jurisdiction over this matter because an order dismissing charges is not an appealable order, and we advised that this appeal could be dismissed unless he , or any party desiring to continue the appeal , filed a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal on or before April 11, 20 11

. On April 5, 2011, we granted Appellant’s counsel’s motion to withdraw and2

informed Appellant of his right to proceed pro se. Appellant timely filed a pro se response to our March 30, 2011 letter. We have considered Appellant’s
response

. It does not cite any authority granting us jurisdiction over this appeal. The rules of appellate procedure provide that a criminal defendant has the right to appeal a judgment of guilt or other appealable order. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). Although the State is expressly permitted by statute to appeal an order dismissing an indictment, this right of appeal has not been extended to the defendant by statute or rule. Consequently, an order dismissing a charging instrument is not an appealable order for purposes of rule 25.2(a)(2) if a defendant brings the appeal

. See Petty v. State , 800 S.W.2d 582, 583

– 84 (Tex. App.

–– Tyler 1990, no pet.) (applying federal law holding that a dismissal of an indictment is not an appealable order and review of a dismissal order must await the outcome of a trial). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction

. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f) ; Skinner v. State , 305 S.W.3d 593, 594 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010).

LEE GABRIEL JUSTICE
PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; DAUPHINOT and GABRIEL, JJ. PUBLISH
DELIVERED: May 26, 2011
Exhibit 99.1



Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of
Title 18 of the United States Code



I, William M. Goodyear,
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Navigant Consulting, Inc., certify that (i) the SEC Form 10-K as of and for the year ended December 31, 2002 (Form 10-K), 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 said Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Navigant Consulting, Inc.



|                                                                       
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    William M. Goodyear                                             
|William M. Goodyear Chairman and Chief Executive Officer March 13, 2003







3