alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-24777, No. 333-24811 and No. 333-24827) of
OmniQuip International, Inc. (the "Company") of our report dated November 3,
1997, appearing in the Company's Current Report on Form 8-K dated December 1,
1997, as amended pursuant to the Amendment No. 1 to Current Report on Form 8-K/A
dated December 12, 1997 (collectively, the "Current Report"). Such Current
Report is incorporated by reference into this Annual Report on Form 10-K dated
December 24, 1997. We also consent to the incorporation by reference of our
report on the Financial Statement Schedule, which appears at Item 14(2) of this
Annual Report on Form 10-K.


PRICE WATERHOUSE LLP
St. Louis, Missouri
December 24, 1997
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. Section 1350,AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Amended Quarterly Report of Aden Solutions Inc.(the
"Company") on Form 10-Q/A-1 for the period ended March 31, 2008 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I,
Silvia Soltan, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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



Dated this 17th day of June, 2008.



| | SILVIA SOLTAN                                      
| | ---------------------------------------------------
| | Silvia Soltan                                      
| | Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer











---
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-18-00558-CR

Quentin Dante Balderaz, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE 391ST DISTRICT COURT OF TOM GREEN COUNTY, 

NO. D-15-0269-SB, THE HONORABLE BRAD GOODWIN, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N 

Appellant Quentin Dante Balderaz seeks to appeal the judgment adjudicating his 

guilt for the felony offense of burglary of a habitation. See Tex. Penal Code § 30.02(c)(2). The 

district court certified that Balderaz waived the right of appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the 

appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2), (d).

__________________________________________________

Jeff Rose, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Pemberton and Field

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: September 19, 2018

Do Not Publish
EX-4.1



 Exhibit 4.1 

AMENDMENT TO SERIES A COMMON STOCK PURCHASE WARRANT 

This Amendment to Series A Common Stock Purchase Warrant (this “Amendment”) is dated as of September 4, 2014, by and
between Cleveland BioLabs, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) and Sabby Healthcare Volatility Master Fund, Ltd. or its assigns (the “Holder”). 

RECITALS 

WHEREAS, the Company issued to the Holder a Series A Common Stock Purchase Warrant, dated
January 16, 2014 (the “Warrant”), exercisable for the Company’s Common Stock, and such Warrant is held by the Holder as of the date hereof. 

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 5(l) of the Warrant, any term thereof may be modified or amended with
the written consent of the Company and the Holder. 
 WHEREAS, the Company and the Holder wish to amend
the Warrant in accordance with the terms hereof, such that the termination date of the Warrant is extended by two (2) years and the exercise price is reduced from $1.22 to $1.02. 

AMENDMENT 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises contained herein,
and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, the Company and the Holder agree as follows: 

1. The Termination Date of the Warrant (as defined in the first paragraph of the Warrant) is hereby amended to be “January 16,
2021.” 
 2. Part b) of Section 2 of the Warrant is hereby amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows: 

“Exercise Price. The exercise price per share of the Common Stock under this Warrant shall be $1.02, subject to adjustment
hereunder (the “Exercise Price”).” 
 3. The Holder agrees to affix this Amendment to the Warrant. Unless otherwise
defined, all capitalized terms in this Amendment shall be as defined in the Warrant. The Warrant, as amended hereby, shall be and remain in full force and effect in accordance with its terms and hereby is ratified and confirmed in all respects.
Except as expressly set forth herein, the execution, delivery, and performance of this Amendment shall not operate as a waiver of, or as an amendment of, any right, power, or remedy of the Holder under the Warrant, as in effect prior to the date
hereof. 
 4. 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 instrument. 
 [SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS] 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have
executed this Amendment as of the first date above written. 
  

			
	CLEVELAND BIOLABS, INC.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Yakov Kogan

		
	Name:	 	 Yakov Kogan

		
	Title:	 	 CEO

	
	SABBY HEALTHCARE VOLATILITY
MASTER FUND, LTD.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Robert Grundstein

		
	Name:	 	 Robert Grundstein

		
	Title:	 	 COO of Investment Manager



 [Signature Page to Amendment to Series A Common Stock Purchase Warrant]
TRUSTMARK NATIONAL 

BANK,

Appellant,

v.

CLASSIC INVESTMENTS OF 

FLORIDA MAGNOLIA, LLC 

A/K/A CLASSIC 

INVESTMENTS OF FLORIDA 

MAGNOLIA, L.L.C., PETER 

ABT, MICHAEL G. KENT, 

CHARLES K. McEACHERN, 

AND JOHN RITENOUR,

Appellees.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D15-4687

____________________________/

Opinion filed April 21, 2016.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Okaloosa County.

William F. Stone, Judge.

Stephen A. Pitre and Robert J. Powell of Clark, Partington, et al., Pensacola, for 

Appellant.

D. Michael Chesser and Tara A. Hagan of Chesser & Barr, P.A., Shalimar, for 

Appellees.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.
2

WETHERELL, ROWE, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., CONCUR.
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

JOSEPH GREENE,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No.: 3:10cv472/RV/EMT

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,

Commissioner of the 

Social Security Administration,

Defendant.

____________________________/

O R D E R

This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge’s Report and

Recommendation dated January 12, 2012 (doc. 22). The parties have been furnished a copy of the

Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to

Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). I have made a de novo determination of all timely

filed objections.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and any timely filed objections thereto

timely filed, I have determined that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and incorporated by

reference in this order.

2. The decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED, this action is DISMISSED,

and the clerk is directed to close the file.

DONE AND ORDERED this 15th day of February, 2012.

/s/ Roger Vinson 

ROGER VINSON

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:10-cv-00472-RV-EMT Document 27 Filed 02/15/12 Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

TERRY L. ROBINSON

vs. 5:11cv138/SPM/CJK

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the court upon plaintiff’s motion to vacate, set aside, or

correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Plaintiff challenges his sentence on

the grounds that he did not receive credit for time served in state custody. Plaintiff

also challenges his conviction on double jeopardy grounds. Plaintiff was convicted

of failure to register as a sex offender, in the United States District Court for the

Southern District of Georgia (doc. 1). Plaintiff seeks review in this court because he

resides in this district and because the Southern District of Georgia dismissed a

previously filed petition under section 2255.

A section 2255 motion is properly brought in the district of conviction, see 28

U.S.C. § 2255(a). Accordingly, defendant’s motion should be transferred to the

United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia.

Based on the foregoing, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED:

Case 5:11-cv-00138-SPM-CJK Document 4 Filed 05/12/11 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

The motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence and accompanying

pleadings be TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Southern

District of Georgia. 

At Pensacola, Florida, this 12th day of May, 2011.

 

/s/Charles J. Kahn, Jr.

CHARLES J. KAHN, JR.

UNITEDSTATESMAGISTRATEJUDGE

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Any objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must be filed within

ten days after being served a copy thereof. Any different deadline that may appear

on the electronic docket isfor the court’s internal use only, and does not control. 

A copy of objections shall be served upon all other parties. Failure to object may

limit the scope of appellate review of factual findings. See 28 U.S.C. § 636; United

States v. Roberts, 858 F.2d 698, 701 (11th Cir. 1988).

Case No: 5:11cv138/SPM/CJK

Case 5:11-cv-00138-SPM-CJK Document 4 Filed 05/12/11 Page 2 of 2
Miller, Diane M.

ee

From: Robert.Bistline@rf.doe.gov

Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 10:23 AM

To: NIOCINDOCKET@CDC.GOV

Ce: James.Jeffries@rf.doe.gov

Subject: Comments to NIOSH interim final rule 42CFR82 "Methods for Radiation Dose Reconstruction
Program Act of 2000

Comments to
42CFR82.doc
Attached are my comments to the NIOSH interim final rule 42CFR82 "Methods

for Radiation Dose Reconstruction Under the Energy Employees Occupational
liiness Compensation Program Act of 2000; Interim Final Rule With Request
for Comments", published in the Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 194/ Friday,
Oct. 5, 2001.

My name is Dr. Robert W. Bistline, U.S. Department of Energy, Rocky Flats
Field Office

Phone : (303) 966-3408

FAX : (303) 966-4763

email: robert.bistline@rf.doe.gov

(See attached file: Comments to 42CFR82.doc)


RFOF 1225.8

United States Government Department of Energy

memorandum

DATE:

REPLY TO
ATTN OF:

SUBJECT:

TO:

Rocky Flats Field Office

10/22/2001

Robert W. Bistline, Ph.D.
Comments on Proposed Rule 42CFR82
NIOSH Docket Officer

I wish to submit the following comments to the Proposed Rule 42CFR82.

The Oct: 5, 2001, Vol.66, No.194 edition of the Federal Register contains the Proposed Rule
42 CFR Part 82 Methods for Radiation Dose Reconstruction Under the Energy Employees
Occupational IlIness Compensation Program Act of 2000; Interim Final Rule With Request
for Comments”. This Proposed Rule states in the Supplementary Information: Section V, p.
50982: “NIOSH will use current ICRP models for calculating internal dose”. All of
DOE has used the internal dose model in ICRP 26 and 30 for internal dose calculation as
required under 10 CFR 835. If NIOSH uses the ICRP 60s and 70s series for internal dose
models it will lower the calculated lifetime internal dose for those individuals applying for
compensation under the DOL EEOICPA significantly (could be as much as a factor of 3.to 5
times less). This could have a devastating public relations impact when workers apply for
compensation using their lifetime doses of record at the sites and then reduced by NIOSH
and no longer qualifying for compensation. The perception of most workers will be that -
"here the government goes screwing us again. I qualified for compensation with the dose I
received at Rocky Flats, Hanford, Oak Ridge, Los Alamos, Savannah River, etc. and now
you played games with my dose and lowered it so Ino longer qualify and the government no
longer has to pay me." In an Inter-Agency agreement it was agreed to some years ago that
we would use ICRP 26 and 30. Changing to the ICRP 60 and 70 series has serious impacts
and the potential to provide support to accusations for lack of credibility in the government.
EXHIBIT 32.2

 

**CERTIFICATION**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

In connection with the Annual Report of Media Sciences International, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date therein specified (the “Report”), I, Kevan D. Bloomgren, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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 operations of the Company. |
|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

Date: September 24, 2009

 
|   | /s/ Kevan D. Bloomgren  |
|--------|-------------------------|
|   | Kevan D. Bloomgren      |
|   | Chief Financial Officer |
### IN THE UNI TED STATES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCUIT

No. 11-30937

IN RE: AARON GENTRAS,
Movant

Motion for an order authorizing the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana to consider a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 application

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and SMITH, Circuit Ju dges. PER CURIAM: Aaron Gentras, Louisiana prisoner #129938, has requested authorization to file a second 28 U.S.C. § 2254 application in federal district court. Gentras was convicted of cocaine possession and was sentenced to 50 years of imprisonment at hard labor without the benefit of probation o r s u spension of sentence. He seeks to argue that his co n s titutional rights were violated when the Louisiana Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal used flawed procedures to review his state petitions for postconviction review. He also wishes to challenge the ruling b y th e Louisiana Supreme Court, made after his first § 2254 application was decided, transferring his case to the state Fifth Circuit for review by a panel of that court. Finally, he suggests that he wants to reurge the claims h e r ai s e d i n his first § 2254 application. He seeks t o raise these claims now based on new facts regarding purportedly improper procedures the state Fifth Circuit used to decide U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Janu ary4, 201 2 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk Case: 11-30937 Document: 00511714523 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/04/2012No. 11-30937

pro se postconviction petitions and the remedial procedures the Louisiana Supreme Court adopted in response. I nfirmities in state postconviction proceedings are not grounds for r e l i e f under § 2254. See Moore v. Dretke , 369 F.3d 844 , 8 4 6 ( 5 th Cir. 2004). Thus,

none of Gent r a s ’ s proposed challenges to the Louisiana courts’ procedures for addressing postconviction petitions states a claim that is cognizable on federal habeas review. Additionally, to the extent that Gentras wishes to raise the same claims that he brought in his previous § 2254 application, he may not do so. See § 2244(b)(1). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Gentras’s motion for authorization to file a successive § 2254 application is DENIED.

2 Case: 11-30937 Document: 00511714523 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/04/2012
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 Quarterly Report of HPC POS System, Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Thomas Kinney, Chief Executive and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:  1. The Report fully complies with requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.    Dated:  March 31, 2011   /s/ Melvin W. Coles Melvin W. Coles Title: Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
# C_2011045EN.01000301.xml

| 12.2.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.2.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6053 — CVC/Apollo/Brit Insurance)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2011/C 45/02

On 19 January 2011, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32011M6053. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32011M6053. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
EXHIBIT 31.2


CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


ECHO GLOBAL LOGISTICS, INC.


PURSUANT TO


SECTION 302 Of THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, David B. Menzel, certify that:


1.    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Echo Global Logistics, Inc.;


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


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


4.    The registrant'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 registrant and we 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 registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;


b)    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this quarterly report based on such evaluation; and


c)    disclosed in this quarterly report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and


5.    The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant'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 registrant'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 registrant's internal control over financial reporting.





Date:August 13, 2010/s/ DAVID B. MENZELDavid B. MenzelChief Financial Officer
## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

April 12, 2006

ERRATA

Appeal No. 04-1568

GLENAYRE ELECTRONICS, INC., v. PHI LLIP JACKSON and PMJ FAMILY LIMITED

PARTNERSHIP

Decided: April 11, 2006 Precedential Opinion

Please make the following change:

Page 16 line 21 change “Glenayre” to --Jackson--