alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Convertible Subordinated Promissory Note Second Extension Agreement



 Exhibit 10.2 
 CONVERTIBLE SUBORDINATED PROMISSORY NOTE MATURITY DATE 
 FOURTH EXTENSION AGREEMENT 
 Whereas, Bioject Medical Technologies Inc., an Oregon corporation (the “Company”), borrowed $91,104 from Life Sciences Opportunities Fund II, L.P., a Delaware
Limited Partnership (the “Lender”), pursuant to that certain Convertible Subordinated Promissory Note, dated as of December 5, 2007 (the “Note”); and 
 Whereas, the Maturity Date of the Note was extended from May 15 2009 to July 15, 2009, pursuant to an Extension Agreement dated April 6, 2009, between the Company and the Lender; the Maturity Date of
the Note was further extended from July 15, 2009 to August 15, 2009, pursuant to the Second Extension Agreement dated July 13, 2009, between the Company and the Lender; and the Maturity Date of the Note was further extended from
August 15, 2009 to August 31, 2009, pursuant to the Third Extension Agreement dated August 14, 2009, between the Company and the Lender; 
 Whereas, no principal and interest have been paid to date on the Note; and 
 Whereas, the Company has requested that the Lender extend the Maturity
Date of the Note and all principal and interest due thereon to September 15, 2009; 
 For good and valuable consideration, the Company and the Lender
agree as follow: 
 The Maturity Date of the Note is hereby extended to September 15, 2009 and all principal and interest due and payable on the Note
shall be due and payable on September 15, 2009 (the “Fourth Extension”). All of the other terms and conditions of the Note, the Convertible Note Purchase and Warrant Agreement between the Company and the Lender dated as of
December 5, 2007, as amended as of December 19, 2007, the Warrant to purchase 12,147 shares of the Company’s Common Stock issued by the Company to the Lender on December 5, 2007 and the Registration Rights Agreement between the
Company and the Lender dated as of December 5, 2007, shall remain in full force and effect and were not and are not amended in any manner by the Extension Agreement, the Second Extension Agreement, the Third Extension Agreement and this Fourth
Extension Agreement. 
 Dated: August 31, 2009 
  

			
	LIFE SCIENCES OPPORTUNITIES FUND II, L.P.
		
	By:	 	 /s/    Al Hansen

		 	Signet Healthcare Partners, LLC, General Partner
		 	Al Hansen, Managing Director

 Bioject Medical Technologies, Inc. 
  

			
	By:	 	 /s/    Ralph Makar

		 	Ralph Makar
		 	President and Chief Executive Officer
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Commerce

###### International Trade Administration

Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Educational, Scientific and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-651; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301), we invite comments on the question of whether an instrument of equivalent scientific value, for the purposes for which the instrument shown below is intended to be used, is being manufactured in the United States.

Comments must comply with 15 CFR 301.5(a)(3) and (4) of the regulations and be filed within 20 days with the Statutory Import Programs Staff, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230. Applications may be examined between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. in Suite 4100W, U.S. Department of Commerce, Franklin Court Building, 1099 14th Street, NW., Washington, DC.

*Docket Number:*                     05-045                

*Applicant:*                     Department of Molecular Physiology and Biophysics, College of Medicine, HSFR Building, 149 Beaumont Avenue, Burlington, VT 05401.                

*Instrument:*                     Electron Microscope, Model Morgagni 268                

*Manufacturer:*                     FEI Company, Czech Republic.                

*Intended Use:*                     The instrument is intended to be used to examine and photograph high-resolution digital images of the anatomical, physiological and pathological structures and processes of samples from a broad range of tissue specimens. The images can be conveniently stored for future use or shared with other researchers via the Internet. Application accepted by Commissioner of Customs: October 18, 2005.                

Gerald A. Zerdy, 

Program Manager, Statutory Import Programs Staff.

[FR Doc. 05-23458 Filed 11-28-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
Case 1:07-cv-03413-LAP Document 40 Filed 06/02/2008 Page 1 of 2Case 1:07-cv-03413-LAP Document 40 Filed 06/02/2008 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                               EXHIBIT 12

                                                KENTUCKY POWER COMPANY
                                  Computation of Ratios of Earnings to Fixed Charges
                                           (in thousands except ratio data)




                                                                                                  Twelve
                                                             Year Ended December 31,              Months
                                                -----------------------------------------------   Ended
                                                  1998      1999      2000      2001     2002     6/30/03
                                                  ----      ----      ----      ----     ----     -------
<S>                                             <C>       <C>       <C>       <C>       <C>       <C>
Fixed Charges:
  Interest on First Mortgage Bonds              $13,936   $12,712   $ 9,503   $ 6,178   $ 2,206   $   250
  Interest on Other Long-term Debt               12,188    13,525    16,367    18,300    23,429    26,570
  Interest on Short-term Debt                     2,455     2,552     3,295     2,329     1,751     1,339
  Miscellaneous Interest Charges                    634       869     2,523     1,059     1,084     1,544
  Estimated Interest Element in Lease Rentals     1,500     1,200     1,700     1,200     1,000     1,000
                                                -------   -------   -------   -------   -------   -------
     Total Fixed Charges                        $30,713   $30,858   $33,388   $29,066   $29,470   $30,703
                                                =======   =======   =======   =======   =======   =======

Earnings:
  Net Income Before Cumulative Effect
   of Accounting Change                         $21,676   $25,430   $20,763   $21,565   $20,567   $20,191
  Plus Federal Income Taxes                       9,785    12,993    17,884     9,553     9,235     7,739
  Plus State Income Taxes                         2,096     2,784     2,457       489     1,627     2,536
  Plus Fixed Charges (as above)                  30,713    30,858    33,388    29,066    29,470    30,703
                                                -------   -------   -------   -------   -------   -------
     Total Earnings                             $64,270   $72,065   $74,492   $60,673   $60,899   $61,169
                                                =======   =======   =======   =======   =======   =======

Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges                 2.09      2.33      2.23      2.08      2.06      1.99
                                                   ====      ====      ====      ====      ====      ====

</TABLE>
U. S. Department of Labor Office of Workers' Compensation Programs 

Division of Longshore and Harbor Workers' 

Compensation 

Washington, DC 20210 

January 27, 2020

INDUSTRY NOTICE No. 177 

TO: EMPLOYERS AND INSURANCE CARRIERS UNDER THE LONGSHORE AND 

HARBOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT (LHWCA), AND OTHER 

INTERESTED PERSONS 

SUBJECT: 2020 increase of civil monetary penalties in accordance with the Federal Civil 

Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 

BACKGROUND: The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 

2015 requires agencies to adjust the levels of existing civil monetary penalties annually based on 

inflation. Industry Notice 158, issued on October 14, 2016, provides background on this required 

annual adjustment. On January 15, 2020, DOL published a final rule adjusting penalties for 

2020. The rule makes small upward adjustments to the penalties assessed by the Office of 

Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP) under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' 

Compensation Act.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this Notice is to outline the increased civil monetary penalties as of 

January 15, 2020. 

Section 14{g) of the LHWCA: Failure to Report Termination of Payments 

The penalty amount has increased from $292 to $297. 20 C.F.R. § 702.236 now states: 

Any employer failing to notify the district director that the final payment of 

compensation has been made as required by § 702.235 shall be assessed a civil penalty in 

the amount of$297 for any violation for which penalties are assessed after Januaryl5, 

2020. The district director has the authority and responsibility for assessing a civil 

penalty under this section. 

Section 30(e) of the LHWCA: Penalty for Late Report oflnjury or Death 

The maximum penalty amount has increased from $24,017 to $24,441. 20 C.F.R. § 702.204 now 

states: 

Any employer, insurance carrier, or self-insured employer who knowingly and willfully 

fails or refuses to send any report required by § 702.201, or who knowingly or willfully 

makes a false statement or misrepresentation in any report, shall be subject to a civil 

penalty not to exceed $24,441 for each such failure, refusal, false statement, or 

misrepresentation for which penalties are assessed after January15, 2020. The district 

director has the authority and responsibility for assessing a civil penalty under this 

section.
Case 7:07-cv-03410-CLB     Document 6      Filed 12/11/2007     Page 1 of 1
f;-& 

' * IJ SDC SDW. ! t 

t DOCUR.iE?X i 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 E[EC!'RC::ICi3A'Y T1B.D li 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YoRK I r nm +: I: 

i. -- I i 

---------------------------------- c- 

- X : ,..._..&.---,.,. ___"_., I.d.C_.*.-+.-~-d*-l_ 

IN RE: FOSADLqX PRODUCTS LIABILmTTY : 

LITIGATION 

MDL NO. 17E9 

1 : 06-md- 1789 (JFKj 

X 

This Document Relates to: ORDER 

All actlons 

- X 

JOHN F. KEENAN, United States District Judge: 

Oral argument on Plaintiffs' notior: to compel 

production ~f documents will tdke plat-e at 1O:OG a.m. on 

June 2, 2008 in Court.room 20-C. 

SO ORDERED. 

Dated: New York, New York 

May 21, 2008 

x, 1 JOHN F. KEENAN \ 

United States District Judge 

Case 1:07-cv-03462-JFK Document 30 Filed 05/21/2008 Page 1 of 1
Case 1:07-cv-03369-AJP Document 13 Filed 06/01/2007 Page 1 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-03369-AJP Document 13 Filed 06/01/2007 Page 2 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-03369-AJP Document 13 Filed 06/01/2007 Page 3 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-03369-AJP Document 13 Filed 06/01/2007 Page 4 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-03369-AJP Document 13 Filed 06/01/2007 Page 5 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-03369-AJP Document 13 Filed 06/01/2007 Page 6 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-03369-AJP Document 13 Filed 06/01/2007 Page 7 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-03369-AJP Document 13 Filed 06/01/2007 Page 8 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-03369-AJP Document 13 Filed 06/01/2007 Page 9 of 9
DLD-262 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 17-1966

___________

IN RE: LARRY CHARLES,

 Petitioner

____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(Related to E.D. Pa Civ. Nos. 2-13-cv-07548 & 2-14-cv-00189)

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.

May 25, 2017

Before: CHAGARES, VANASKIE, and KRAUSE, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: June 14, 2017)

_________

OPINION*

_________

PER CURIAM

In this mandamus petition, Larry Charles “seeks an Order to compel the United 

States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to issue a Certificate of 

Appealability” in connection with a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition he filed in 2013. Because 

mandamus may “not be used as a substitute for the regular appeals process,” Cheney v. 

U.S. Dist. Court, 542 U.S. 367, 380–81, (2004), we will deny Charles’ petition.

 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.
2

Charles filed a § 2254 petition in 2013, seeking to attack a 25–50 year sentence 

imposed after he pleaded no contest to various sex crimes in Philadelphia County. The 

District Court denied his petition and his request for a certificate of appealability. We 

denied his request for a certificate of appealability—concluding that “jurists of reason 

would not debate the District Court’s assessment of his constitutional claims”— and also 

denied his request for rehearing. C.A. No. 15-3064. The Supreme Court denied his 

petition for a writ of certiorari, and also his petition for rehearing. Charles v. Harry, 137 

S. Ct. 671, reh’g denied, 137 S. Ct. 1369 (2017).

Charles has exhausted all avenues to appeal the District Court’s denial of his 

request for a certificate of appealability—and has lost. He may not now use mandamus 

as yet another attempt at an appeal. Cheney, 542 U.S. at 380–81. We will deny his 

petition.1

 

1

In the alternative, Charles asks us to recall our mandate denying his request for a 

certificate of appealability—a request that is “regarded as a second or successive 

application for purposes of [28 U.S.C.] § 2244(b).” Calderon v. Thompson, 523 U.S. 

538, 553 (1998). Because Charles cannot meet § 2244(b)’s gatekeeping requirements—

he does not claim to have newly discovered evidence of his actual innocence, or rely on a 

new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review—we will 

not recall our mandate. See United States v. Winkelman, 746 F.3d 134, 135 (3d Cir. 

2014).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           4,727
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   19,362
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     13,378
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                40,583
<PP&E>                                          33,684
<DEPRECIATION>                                  22,840
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  67,596
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           20,983
<BONDS>                                          5,464
<COMMON>                                           182
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      37,854
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    67,596
<SALES>                                         29,823
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                29,823
<CGS>                                           11,835
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   11,835
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,096
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 159
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,659
<INCOME-TAX>                                       514
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,145
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,145
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.15
        

</TABLE>
LAW OFFICES OF 

GEORGE B. FREEHILL FREEHILT, HOGAN & MAIIAR LLF' NEW JERSEY OFFICE 

WILLIAM L. JUSKA. JR. 850 BERGEN AVENUE 

JAMES L. ROSS' 80 PINE STREET JERSEY CITY, N.J. 07306 

ERIC E. LENCK TELEPHONE (973) 6235514 OKK, N.Y. 10005-1759 FACSIMILE (973) 623-3813 

PETER J. GUTOWSKI 

MARK F. MULLER 

WAYNE D. MEEHAN' CONNECTICUT OFFICE 

23 OLD KINGS HIGHWAY SOUTH 

ONICALLY FILED 

BY HAND 

Honorable Richard M. Berman 

United States District Judge 

Daniel Patrick Moynihan 

United States Courthouse 

500 Pearl St., Room 650 

New York, NY 10007 

Re: NB Shipping Ltd. v. Genuine Shipping Corp. 07-3237 (RMB) 

Dear Judge Berman: 

We represent Plaintiff in this matter and write to request that Your Honor grant us a 

sixty-day extension to serve the summons and complaint upon the Defendant. The deadline for 

effecting service is October 23,2007. This is our second request for ithis relief. 

This matter involves a claim by Plaintiff for breach of a nnaritime contract of charter 

party which is subject to London arbitration. The merits will be decided in London and there 

will be no discovery or other substantive actions in connection with this New York action. This 

action was commenced for purposes of obtaining security in connection with the London 

arbitration. Plaintiffs complaint thus included an ex parte request fix an attachment pursuant to 

Supplemental Admiralty Rule B of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which relief was 

granted by the Court. 

Despite continued efforts to restrain hnds of the Defendant, Plaintiff has not been 

successhl in attaching any assets to date. Rule B specifically provides for an attachment as ex 

parte relief, and under Local Admiralty Rule B.2, we are not required to provide notice of these 

proceedings to the Defendant until after property has been actually restrained. If we were to 

NYWCS 11291 975.1 

Case 1:07-cv-03237-RMB Document 6 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 1 of 2
The Honorable Richard M. Berman 

October 16,2007 

Page 2 

effect service now upon the Defendant (before any property is restrained), the purpose for which 

the attachment was sought and this Court's order of attachment woulcl be defeated. 

Accordingly, because the dispute is subject to London arbitration and because assets of 

the Defendant have not yet been restrained triggering the notice provision of Rule B, we 

respectfully request tha nsion of time to serve the summons and 

complaint up to and incl 

I 

Respectfully submitted, 

FREEHILL HOGAN & MAHAR, LLP 

~i1lih-n L. juska, Jr. \ 

Manuel A. Molina 

NYDOCS 11291975.1 

Case 1:07-cv-03237-RMB Document 6 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 2 of 2
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-20505

Summary Calendar

 

DANTE D’AGOSTINO,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

PATERSON, Sergeant; D. MERRELL, DR.; JOHN DOE, #1, DR.; JOHN DOE,

#2, DR.; CHANNEY, DR.,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 96-CV-3826

- - - - - - - - - -

June 9, 1999

Before EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Dante D’Agostino, Texas prisoner # 688309, appeals from the

district court’s order dismissing his civil rights complaint as

frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). He argues that the

defendant prison officials were deliberately indifferent to his

serious medical needs. We have reviewed the record and

D’Agostino’s brief, and we conclude that the district court

abused its discretion by dismissing the complaint as frivolous as

to two defendants. See Payne v. Lynaugh, 843 F.2d 177, 178 (5th 
No. 98-20505

-2-

 

** Spears v. McCotter, 776 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985).

Cir. 1988). D’Agostino’s allegations at the Spears** hearing

present a nonfrivolous claim of interference with prescribed

medical care under the Eighth Amendment which, with further

factual development, "may pass section 1915[e] muster." See

Eason v. Thaler, 14 F.3d 8, 10 (5th Cir. 1994). D’Agostino’s

testimony was that: 1) at least two physicians in the prison

system prescribed a back brace for D’Agostino and that one of

them, Dr. Thompson (defendant Dr. John Doe #1), conditioned the

prescription on approval from nonmedical security personnel;

2) that Sergeant Patterson confiscated his prescribed back brace

even though it contained no metal and even after D’Agostino

showed him the prescription for it written by Dr. Thompson; and

3) that if the back brace did not contain metal, it was not a

security threat. Any reliance on other evidence at the Spears

hearing to counter D’Agostino’s testimony was error. See Wilson

v. Barrientos, 926 F.2d 480, 483 (5th Cir. 1991). The facts to

which D’Agostino testified are not irrational or wholly

incredible, so they are not frivolous. See Denton v. Hernandez,

504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992). Accordingly, the district court’s

dismissal of the complaint as frivolous is VACATED as to

defendants Patterson and Thompson, and the case is REMANDED for

further proceedings. The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED

as to the remaining defendants.

AFFIRMED in part; VACATED AND REMANDED in part.
CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT



I, Ronald S. Simon, Chief Financial Officer of Whitney Information Network, Inc. (the Company), certify,
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



| | (1) |  | The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the annual period ended December 31, 2002 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities and 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 result of operations of the Company.
| | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: April 14, 2003



/s/ Ronald S.
Simon

Ronald S. Simon

Chief Financial Officer



1