alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Grata
November 11, 2005

                         FIRST AMENDMENT

                             TO THE

                INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT AGREEMENT

     THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT AGREEMENT
(this "First Amendment") is made as this 11th of November, 2005
by and between Diasense, Inc. (the Company") a Pennsylvania
corporation, located at 2275 Swallowhill Road, Building 2500,
Pittsburgh, PA 15220 and Jeremy Grata, an individual residing at
85 Linda Lane, Indiana, PA 15701 (the "Consultant").

     WHEREAS, Diasense and the Consultant are parties to that
certain Independent Consultant Agreement (the "Agreement") dated
May 19, 2005; and

     WHEREAS, Diasense and the Consultant desire to amend the
Agreement as set forth herein;

     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises,
and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto
agree as follows:

1.   Warrants.  Section 3.3 of the Agreement is hereby amended in
its entirety as follows:

      3.3.  Warrants.  Upon  execution  of  this  Agreement,  the
Consultant  is  contemporaneously being  issued  an  amended  and
restated  stock  purchase  warrant to purchase  up  to  4,000,000
shares  of  the Company's restricted common stock at an  exercise
price of $0.01 per share (the "Amended Warrant"), exercisable for
a  period of five (5) years and otherwise in accordance with  the
terms of the Amended Warrant.

2.    Term  and  Termination.  Section 4.1 of  the  Agreement  is
hereby amended in its entirety as follows:

      4.1   Term  of Agreement. The term of this Agreement  shall
commence  on May 19,      2005 and shall continue until  May  19,
2009,  at  which time it may, upon written     agreement  of  the
parties,  continue  on a month to month basis thereafter,  unless
terminated pursuant to paragraph 4.2.

3.    Full Force and Effect.  Except as expressly amended hereby,
the terms of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.



     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company and the Consultant have
executed and delivered this First Amendment each intending it to
constitute an instrument under seal, on the date first above
written.

                                 Diasense, Inc.

Date: November 11, 2005          By: \s\ Keith R. Keeling

                                 Name: Keith R. Keeling

                                 Title: CEO



Date: November 11, 2005          By:  \s\ Jeremy Grata

                                 Name: Jeremy Grata
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

February 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4562

Swagelok Company:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
EXHIBIT 27 --  THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL
INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM PAYLESS SHOESOURCE, INC. CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF EARNINGS FOR THE 26 WEEKS ENDED AUGUST
1, 1998, AND CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF AUGUST 1,
1998, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001060232
<NAME> PAYLESS SHOESOURCE,INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-01-1998
<CASH>                                         135,400<F1>
<SECURITIES>                                         0<F2>
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,000<F3>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0<F3>
<INVENTORY>                                    367,800
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               525,500
<PP&E>                                         902,700
<DEPRECIATION>                                 408,200
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,046,600
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          218,400
<BONDS>                                          5,300<F4>
<COMMON>                                           400
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     772,000<F5>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,046,600
<SALES>                                      1,404,100<F6>
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,404,100
<CGS>                                          953,600
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  953,600
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              (4,700)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                144,900
<INCOME-TAX>                                    57,800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             87,100
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    87,100
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.36<F7>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.33<F7>
<FN>
<F1>Includes cash equivalent securities.
<F2>Any "securities" are shown under "Cash".
<F3>Receivables are net after deduction of allowances.
<F4>Consists of Capital Lease Obligations.
<F5>Reflects Retained Earnings and Additional Paid In Capital.
<F6>Reflects net sales.
<F7>Expressed in dollars.
</FN>


<PAGE>


</TABLE>
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2


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 Payless ShoeSource, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending May 3, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ullrich
E. Porzig, Senior Vice President - Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: June 16, 2003


                                           /s/ Ullrich E. Porzig
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Ullrich E. Porzig
                                           Senior Vice President,
                                           Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer

                                       21
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. James Albert MITCHELL, Defendant/Appellant; STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. John Elmer NICKELS, Defendant/Appellant; STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Cletus PARKER, Defendant/Appellant; STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. William A. MEADOWS, Defendant/Appellant.

Nos. 67294-67297.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Dec. 26, 1995.

Neil Bruntrager, Mary Bruntrager, Brun-trager & Billings, St. Louis, for appellants.

Stephen V. Combs, Prosecuting Attorney, Jefferson County, Hillsboro, for respondent.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and KAROHL and DOWD, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Defendants appeal from judgments of conviction for first degree trespassing, § 569.140, RSMo 1986. They were each fined $25.00. We affirm. We have reviewed the record and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).
EXHIBIT
32.2

Certification
of Principal Executive OfficerPursuant to U.S.C. Section 1350As Adopted Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Adi Raviv,
Chief Financial  Officer of U.S. Wireless Data, Inc.,  hereby certify,  to my knowledge,
that the annual report on Form  10-KSB for the period ending June 30, 2003 of U.S.
Wireless Data,  Inc. (the "Form 10-KSB")  fully complies with the  requirements
of  Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 and the  information
contained in the Form 10-KSB fairly  presents,  in  all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of U.S. Wireless Data, Inc.

Dated: October
14, 2003

| | /s/
Adi Raviv
Adi Raviv
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial
Officer)
| | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

---
#### In the Matter of the Detention of WM. J. BELLAMY.

(Filed 8 December, 1926.)

Habeas Corpus — Appeal and Error — Certiorari—Courts—Discretion.

Where the care or custody of children are not involved an appeal to the'Supreme Court will not lie from the judgment of the Superior Court in *habeas corpus*proceedings refusing to release one detained, as in *673this case, in a private hospital for mental diseases, the remedy being addressed on motion for a *certiorari to*the sound discretion of the appellate court.

Appeal by petitioner from *Lome, J.,*at May Term, 1926, of Bukee.

Tbis was an application by Dr. Bussell Bellamy for tbe discharge of bis brother, William J. Bellamy, a patient confined in a private hospital, Broadoaks Sanatorium, under an order of the clerk of the Superior Court of Burke County, heard upon writ of *habeas corpus*at Morganton; N. C., 22 June, 1926. From an order denying the relief sought, the petitioner appeals.

*W. G. Newland for petitioner.*

*8. J. Ervin and 8. J. Ervin, Jr., for respondent.*

Stacy, C. J.

The appeal must be dismissed, for the reason, that, except in cases concerning the care and custody of children, no appeal lies from a judgment in a *habeas corpus*proceeding refusing to discharge a person from custody or confinement, but the remedy, if any, in such a case, is by petition for a writ of *certiorari,*which is addressed to the sound discretion of the appellate court. *S. v. Edwards, ante,*321; *In re McCade,*183 N. C., 242; *In re Croom,*175 N. C., 455.

While -this course must be pursued, we deem it not amiss to say that a careful examination of the record, considering it as on writ of *certiorari (S. v. Hooker,*183 N. C., 763), discloses no error on the part of the learned judge who heard the matter below.

Appeal dismissed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7376

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

DERRICK SIMMONS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (7:07-cr-00294-HMH-12; 7:14-cv-02535-HMH)

Submitted: February 6, 2015 Decided: February 10, 2015

Before WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Derrick Simmons, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Burke Moorman, OFFICE 

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Derrick Simmons seeks to appeal the district court’s 

orders dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion 

and denying his motion for reconsideration. The orders are not 

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Simmons has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, 

we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 
3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNIT E D ST AT E S CO URT O F APPE AL S FO R T H E NINT H CIRCUIT
UNIT E D ST A T E S O F AM E RICA,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. G ARY W H IT E , AK

A B i g J-Killa, AK

A B ig K illa, AK A JC, AK

AJam e s Cail W hite , AK

AJC W hite , De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 16-50113

D.C . No. 2:10-c r-00923-SJO-1
M E M O RANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia S. Jam e s Ote ro, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d and Subm itte d August 8, 2017 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : RE INH ARDT , K O Z INSKI and CH RIST E N , C irc uit Judge s. 1. “ [T] he distric t c o urt m ay not c ontra dic t a

n a ffirm ative finding by

the jury .” Unite d State s v. Pim e nte l-Lope z , 859 F.3d 1134, 1143 (9th C ir. 2016) (a s 

# FIL ED OCT 12 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.pa ge 2

am e nde d). The distric t c ourt he re e rre d by se nte nc ing W

hite ba se d on a highe r drug we ight tha

n the jury found in its spe c ia l ve rdic t. Se e id. a t 1140.
2. The distric t c ourt a lso e rre d by re ly ing on e vide nc e outsidethe re c ord without notify

i ng White in a dva

nc e . Se e Unite d State s v. W arr, 530 F.3d 1152, 1162–63 (9th C ir. 2008).
V ACAT E D AND RE M ANDE D
.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

March 19, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2259

Braeburn Systems LLC: 

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice published at 

83 FR 67463 (‘the exclusion notice’) and posted on the USTR website, at

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/2018-28277.pdf.

The scope of your exclusion is governed by the scope of the formal HTSUS product 

description in the Annex to the exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in 

any particular request for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted 

by excluding from the additional tariffs products covered by a specially drafted description 

contained in the Annex to the product exclusion notice. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


The Board of Directors and Stockholders
OrCAD, Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form
S-8 (Nos. 333-04811, 333-15099 and 333-15145) or OrCAD, Inc. of our reports
dated February 1, 1999, except for note 11 which is as of February 22, 1999
relating to the consolidated balance sheets of OrCAD, Inc. as of December 31,
1998 and 1997, and the related consolidated statements of operations,
stockholders' equity, and cash flows and related financial statement schedule
for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 1998, which
reports appear in the December 31, 1998 Annual Report on Form 10-K of OrCAD,
Inc.

                                             /s/   KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP

Portland, Oregon
March 31, 1999
Exhibit 12(a).2

 

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 annualreport on Form 20-F of M-Systems Flash Disk Pioneers Limited (the "Company")for the period ended December 31, 2002, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, RonitMaor, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of her knowledge and belief: 

 

(1)  the Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and 

 

(2)  the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company. 

 

 

By: /s/ RonitMaor  

Ronit Maor,

Chief FinancialOfficer

M-SystemsFlash Disk Pioneers Ltd. 

Dated January 12th, 2004

  

 

**____ 1 ____**
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-6320

SEAN AARON HOLMES,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

PATRICK CONROY; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE

OF MARYLAND,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA99-914-DKC)

Submitted: July 10, 2000 Decided: July 19, 2000

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sean Aaron Holmes, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr.,

Attorney General, Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on

February 16, 2000, the district court’s records show that it was

entered on the docket sheet on February 17, 2000. Pursuant to

Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is

the date that the order was entered on the docket sheet that we

take as the effective date of the district court’s decision. See

Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).

2

PER CURIAM:

Sean Holmes appeals the district court’s order denying relief

on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.

2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court's memorandum and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning

of the district court. See Holmes v. Conroy, No. CA-99-914-DKC (D.

Md. Feb. 17, 2000).* We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

February 19, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2986

Curtis Instruments, Inc:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request concerns a product strategically important or related to 

‘‘Made in China 2025’’ or other Chinese industrial programs.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel