alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

EDWARD THOMAS, # 524590,

Petitioner,

v. Case No. 08-cv-14273

Honorable Patrick J. Duggan

CAROL HOWES,

Respondent.

______________________________/

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR DISCOVERY

Petitioner Edward Thomas has filed a habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254, alleging that he is incarcerated in violation of his constitutional rights. Petitioner

is challenging his convictions in 2006 for kidnapping, criminal sexual conduct in the

fourth degree, and domestic violence. Petitioner is a state inmate, currently incarcerated

at the Cooper Street Correctional Facility in Jackson, Michigan. Presently before the

Court is Petitioner’s motion for discovery, filed November 18, 2010. For the reasons

stated below, the Court denies the motion without prejudice.

Habeas petitioners have no right to automatic discovery. Stanford v. Parker, 266

F.3d 442, 460 (6th Cir. 2001). A district court has the discretion, under Rule 6 of the

Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254, to grant discovery to a petitioner

in a habeas case upon a fact specific showing of good cause. Id. If a petitioner can point

to specific evidence that might be discovered that would support his constitutional claims,

he is able to establish good cause to obtain discovery. Burns v. Lafler, 328 F. Supp. 2d
2

711, 718 (E.D. Mich. 2004). However, without a showing of good cause and without a

habeas petitioner citing to specific information of what he hopes to learn from the

additional discovery, a federal court will not order discovery. Id. A habeas petitioner’s

vague and conclusory allegations are insufficient to obtain additional discovery. Burns,

328 F. Supp. 2d at 718. Furthermore, a district court does not abuse its discretion in

denying a habeas petitioner’s request for discovery, where the request falls more in the

category of a “fishing expedition masquerading as discovery.” Stanford, 266 F.3d at 460.

Here, the Court finds that Petitioner has failed to establish good cause in order to

obtain the additional discovery. Respondent filed an answer to the petition and Rule 5

materials on July 1 and 6, 2009, respectively. After the Court carefully reviews those

materials, it will then determine whether additional discovery is necessary to resolve

Petitioner’s claims. If the Court concludes that additional discovery is necessary, then it

will order such discovery. Petitioner need not file any additional motions regarding this

issue.

SO ORDERED.

DATE: December 9, 2010 s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to:

Edward Thomas, #524590

Cooper Street Correctional Facility

3100 Cooper Street

Jackson, MI 49201

Laura A. Cook, Esq.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, CASE NO: 08-20517-01

v. DISTRICT JUDGE THOMAS L. LUDINGTON

MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES E. BINDER

DAVID TINOCO,

Defendant.

/

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT, FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

I. REPORT AND FINDINGS

On May 27, 2009, this Defendant was referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1(B) and 636(b)(3) for purposes of receiving, on consent of

the parties, Defendant’s offer of a plea of guilty. The Defendant, along with counsel, appeared

before me on May 27, 2009. In open court I examined the Defendant under oath, confirmed

the Defendant’s consent, and then advised and questioned the Defendant regarding each of the

inquiries prescribed by Rule 11(b) of the FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. Based

upon the Defendant’s answers and demeanor, I HEREBY FIND 1) that the Defendant is

competent to tender a plea, 2) that Defendant’s plea was knowingly, intelligently made, and 3)

that the offense(s) to which he pled are supported by an independent basis in fact containing

each of the essential elements of the offense(s). Therefore, I have ordered the preparation of a

presentence investigation report.

1:08-cr-20517-TLL-CEB Doc # 117 Filed 05/28/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 362
II. RECOMMENDATION

For the reasons set forth above, IT IS RECOMMENDED that subject to the Court’s

consideration of the plea agreement pursuant to Rule 11(c) of the FEDERAL RULES OF

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, the Defendant be adjudged guilty and have sentence imposed.

III. REVIEW

The parties to this action may object to and seek review of this Report and

Recommendation within ten (10) days of service of a copy hereof as provided for in 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1). Failure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further right of

appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S. Ct. 466, 88 L. Ed.2d 435 (1985); Frontier Ins.

Co. v. Blaty, 454 F.3d 590, 596 (6th Cir. 2006); United States v. Sullivan, 431 F.3d 976, 984

(6th Cir. 2005). The parties are advised that making some objections, but failing to raise

others, will not preserve all the objections a party may have to this Report and

Recommendation. McClanahan v. Comm’r of Social Security, 474 F.3d 830, 837 (6th Cir.

2006); Frontier Ins. Co., 454 F.3d at 596-97. Pursuant to E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d)(2), a copy of

any objections is to be served upon this Magistrate Judge.

 s/ Charles` E Binder 

CHARLES E. BINDER 

Dated: May 28, 2009 United States Magistrate Judge

CERTIFICATION

I hereby certify that this Report and Recommendation was electronically filed this date,

electronically served on Shane Waller and Shawn Sutton, and served on District Judge

Ludington in the traditional manner.

Date: May 28, 2009 By s/Jean L. Broucek 

Case Manager to Magistrate Judge Binder

1:08-cr-20517-TLL-CEB Doc # 117 Filed 05/28/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 363
#### Lori LEMMER, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. NU-KOTE HOLDING, INC; et al, Defendants, David F. Brigante; Daniel M Kerrane; Anthony G Schmeck, Defendants—Appellees.

No. 02-11080.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 12, 2003.

Before EMILIO M. GARZA and DENNIS, Circuit Judges, and VANCE,* District Judge.

*

 District Judge of the Eastern District of Louisiana, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM.**

We hold the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the underlying case with prejudice. *See Goldstein v. MCI*Worldcom, 340 F.3d 238 (5th Cir.2003); *Rosenzweig v. Azurix Corp.,*332 F.3d 854 (5th Cir.2003).

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.
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Ebaristo BARRERA, Appellant.

No. WD 47342.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

March 14, 1995.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied May 2, 1995.

Application to Transfer Denied June 20, 1995.

*630Emmett D. Queener, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Philip M. Koppe, Asst. Atty. Gen., Kansas City, for respondent.

Before SPINDEN, P.J., and ULRICH and SMART, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

Ebaristo G. Barrera appeals from the trial court’s judgment finding him guilty of robbery in the first degree, in violation of § 569.020, RSMo 1986, and armed criminal action, in violation of § 571.015, RSMo 1986. Defendant Barrera was sentenced to consecutive sentences of seventeen and twenty years imprisonment, respectively. Defendant also appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion.

On appeal, defendant seeks relief on the basis of several alleged instances of prosecu-torial misconduct. Defendant also contends the court erred in failing to grant a mistrial when a witness referred to having found a “green Leafy substance” in the vehicle in which defendant was riding. Defendant contends in his appeal from the denial of his 29.15 motion that counsel failed to obtain a copy of the transcript of a related trial in which the prosecuting witness, Pankey, also testified, and that such failure hindered counsel’s ability to impeach Pankey’s testimony in his case.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).
Order entered February 22 , 2017

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 16
- 01250
- CV MICHAEL HACKBARTH, Appellant

V. UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT DALLAS, Appellee On Appeal fro m the 134th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC
- 15
- 06745



### O RDER Before the Court is appellant’s February 20, 2017 unopposed motion to extend time to file reply brief. Appellant’s motion is GRANTED . Appellant’s reply bri ef shall be filed by March 14, 2017.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE
**Exhibit 15.3**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in theRegistration Statement (No. 333-107102 on Form S-8) pertaining to the Ispat International N.V. Global Stock Option Plan, of our report dated February 8, 2005, with respect to the Consolidated Financial Statements of Ispat Iscor Limited andsubsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 2004, included in this annual report on Form 20-F/A of Mittal Steel Company N.V. for the year ended December 31, 2006. 

Pretoria, South Africa 

July 2, 2007 

/s/ KPMG Inc.
EXHIBIT A

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 500-1 Filed 03/14/19 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 500-1 Filed 03/14/19 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 500-1 Filed 03/14/19 Page 3 of 3
Exhibit 32.02    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 POWRtec International Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Len Wood, 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 and belief:  (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 result of operations of the Company.      /s/ Len Wood By: Len Wood Chief Financial Officer  Dated: August 16, 2010  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.
Exhibit 32





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 this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of NeuLion, Inc. (the “Company”) for the third quarter ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned officers of the Company 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 the best of his or her 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.











/s/ Nancy LiName:
Nancy LiTitle:
Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)Date:
November 10, 2010








/s/ Arthur J. McCarthyName:
Arthur J. McCarthyTitle:
Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Financial Officer)Date:
November 10, 2010
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ORDER ESTABLISHING TRIAL DOCKET FOR THE MONTHS OF JANUARY AND

 FEBRUARY, 2010, BEFORE THE HONORABLE PATRICK J. DUGGAN*

Listed below are the cases on this Court's trial docket for the months of November and

December, 2009. Counsel will be notified when their case reaches No. 5. After such

notice, counsel should be prepared to begin trial any time on 48 hours notice. It is

counsel's responsibility in all cases after they have been so notified to contact my clerk,

Marilyn Orem, at 234-5147, to ascertain the status of the trial docket. Unless otherwise

notified, this Court commences trial at 8:45 a.m. PLEASE BE PROMPT!

1. 08-14136 SHAKOOR V. EVANS, ET.AL

2. 08-14318 CONOCOPHILLIPS V. CONVENIENCE DEPOT, ET.AL

3. 08-14922 FIALKA-FELDMAN V. OAKLAND UNIVERSITY BOARD OF TRUSTEES

4. 08-14117 SMITH V. MICHIGAN TUBE SWAGERS & FABRICATORS

5. 09-10981 PFISTER V. CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES, ET.AL

6. 09-11648 EDMUNDS V. BOARD OF CONTROL OF EASTERN MI. UNIVERSITY

7. 09-11366 N&W COMMODITIES V. USA

8. 09-11949 KAID V. LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE CO.

s/Patrick J. Duggan 

Patrick J. Duggan

United States District Judge

Dated: December 1, 2009

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record

on December 1, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Marilyn Orem 

Case Manager

*PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT TRIAL WILL NOT BEGIN BEFORE THE FINAL

PRETRIAL CONFERENCE DATE.

IF THERE IS A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PENDING, FINAL PRETRIAL

CONFERENCE WILL BE RESCHEDULED APPROXIMATELY 10 DAYS AFTER ANY

DECISION ON SUCH MOTION.

2:08-cv-14117-PJD-MJH Doc # 16 Filed 12/01/09 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 53
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 113 (Tuesday, June 11, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 29568]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14750]



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


DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Division of Research Grants; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
Division of Research Grants Special Emphasis Panel (SEP) meeting:

    Purpose/Agenda: To review individual grant applications.
    Name of SEP: Clinical Sciences.
    Date: June 11, 1996.
    Time: 1:30 p.m.
    Place: Holiday Inn, Chevy Chase, Maryland.
    Contact Person: Dr. Lawrence Pinkus, Scientific Review 
Administrator, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4140, Bethesda, Maryland 
20892, (301) 435-1214.

    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
above meeting due to the urgent need to meet timing limitations 
imposed by the grant review and funding cycle.
    The meeting will be closed in accordance with the provisions set 
forth in secs. 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5, U.S.C. 
Applications and/or proposals and the discussions could reveal 
confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable 
material and personal information concerning individuals associated 
with the applications and/or proposals, the disclosure of which 
would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, 93.333, 
93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, 
National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: June 5, 1996.
Margery G. Grubb,
Senior Committee Management Specialist, NIH.
[FR Doc. 96-14750 Filed 6-10-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
Exhibit C

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 613-3 Filed 05/24/19 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 613-3 Filed 05/24/19 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 613-3 Filed 05/24/19 Page 3 of 3
EXHIBIT 23.1

               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT

            We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the
Registration Statement on Form S-8, SEC File No. 333-127773, of Linkwell
Corporation and the related prospectuses of our audit report dated February 16,
2007 with respect to the consolidated balance sheet at December 31, 2006 and the
consolidated statements of operations, shareholders' equity and cash flows of
Linkwell Corporation and its subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 2006
appearing in the Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2006.


/s/ Sherb & Co., LLP
Certified Public Accountants


Boca Raton, Florida
April 2, 2007


<PAGE>
- 1 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

GARY M. RESTAINO 

United States Attorney

District of Arizona

KEVIN M. RAPP (Ariz. Bar No. 014249, kevin.rapp@usdoj.gov) MARGARET PERLMETER (Ariz. Bar No. 024805, margaret.perlmeter@usdoj.gov) PETER S. KOZINETS (Ariz. Bar No. 019856, peter.kozinets@usdoj.gov) ANDREW C. STONE (Ariz. Bar No. 026543, andrew.stone@usdoj.gov) Assistant U.S. Attorneys

40 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1800

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4408

Telephone (602) 514-7500

DAN G. BOYLE (N.Y. Bar No. 5216825, daniel.boyle2@usdoj.gov) 

Special Assistant U.S. Attorney

312 N. Spring Street, Suite 1400

Los Angeles, CA 90012

Telephone (213) 894-2426

KENNETH POLITE

Assistant Attorney General 

Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice

AUSTIN M. BERRY (Texas Bar No. 24062615, austin.berry2@usdoj.gov) U.S. Department of Justice

Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section 1301 New York Avenue, NW, 11th Floor

Washington, D.C. 20005

Telephone (202) 412-4136

Attorneys for Plaintiff

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

Dan Hyer, 

 Defendant. 

No. CR-18-00422-005-PHX-DJH 

MOTION TO CONTINUE 

SENTENCING

(Eleventh Request)

The United States of America hereby requests this Court to continue the sentencing 

hearing currently set for December 11, 2023, at 9:30 a.m. for Defendant Dan Hyer, by 

ninety (90) days.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1882 Filed 10/20/23 Page 1 of 3
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Defendant Hyer’s plea agreement contemplates that he will not be sentenced until 

the conclusion of his cooperation. 

Counsel for the Defendant has no objection to this motion. 

Respectfully submitted this 20th day of October, 2023. 

GARY M. RESTAINO

United States Attorney District of Arizona

s/ Kevin M. Rapp KEVIN M. RAPP

MARGARET PERLMETER

PETER S. KOZINETS

ANDREW C. STONE

Assistant U.S. Attorneys

DAN G. BOYLE

Special Assistant U.S. Attorney

 

KENNETH POLITE

Assistant Attorney General 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice

AUSTIN M. BERRY

Trial Attorney

U.S. Department of Justice, Criminal Division

Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1882 Filed 10/20/23 Page 2 of 3
- 3 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 20th day of October, 2023, I electronically transmitted 

the attached document to the Clerk’s Office using the CM/ECF system for filing and 

transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF registrants who have 

entered their appearance as counsel of record.

s/Daniel Parke U.S. Attorney’s Office

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1882 Filed 10/20/23 Page 3 of 3
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6467

THERON JOHNNY MAXTON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

VAUGHN JACKSON, Captain, MSU at Kirkland Correctional Institution; MICHAEL MOORE, Director

of SCDC,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CA-95-3688-3-6BC)

Submitted: May 16, 1996 Decided: June 6, 1996

Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Theron Johnny Maxton, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the

record and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate

judge's recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Maxton v. Jackson, No. CA-95-3688-3-6BC (D.S.C. Mar. 12, 1996). 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.

AFFIRMED
exv10w5






Exhibit 10.5




AMENDMENT NO. 1

TO

REVENUE SHARING DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT




     This Amendment No. 1 (the “Amendment”) to the Revenue Sharing Distribution Agreement is
entered into by and among Oculus Innovative Sciences, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Oculus”), and
VetCure, Inc., a California company (“VetCure”, and together with Seller, the “Parties”) as of
February 24, 2009, by and among the Parties.



RECITALS




     A. Oculus and VetCure previously entered into that certain Revenue Sharing Distribution
Agreement effective January 26, 2009 (“RSDA”). Hereinafter, the Revenue Sharing Distribution
Agreement will be known as the Revenue Sharing, Partnership and Distribution Agreement.



     B. The parties wish to modify certain terms of the Agreement on the terms and subject to the
conditions set forth in this Amendment.



     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, agreements and representations
contained in this Amendment and the RSDA, the parties hereto agree as follows:



     1. Definitions. Except as may be expressly provided in this Amendment, all capitalized
terms used in this Amendment which are defined in the RSDA shall have the same meanings in this
Amendment as in the RSDA.



     2. Name Change from VetCure, Inc. to Vetericyn, Inc. The Parties agree to modify the
RSDA in all sections to reflect VetCure’s name change from VetCure, Inc., to the new corporate
name, Vetericyn, Inc.



     3. Amendment to Section 1.10 — Territory. Section 1.10 is hereby amended to read as
follows: “Territory” shall mean the United States of America, Canada and Puerto Rico.



     4. Equity Compensation Section 4.6 is deleted in its entirety. It is acknowledged by
both Parties that no equity was issued pursuant to the RSDA.



     5. Conflict. In the event of any conflict between the provisions of this Amendment
and the unamended provisions of the RSDA, the provisions of this Amendment shall prevail and the
provisions of the RSDA shall be deemed modified by this Amendment as necessary to resolve such
conflict.



1









 





     6. Effect of Amendment. Except as expressly amended by this Amendment and/or by the
preceding sentence, the terms and provisions of the RSDA shall continue in full force and effect.



     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment to be effective as of February
24, 2009.


Oculus Innovative Sciences, Inc.



By:
/s/ Jim Shutz


 






Title:
VP and General Counsel



 




 



Vetericyn,
Inc. (formerly VetCure, Inc.)



By:
/s/ Robert C. Burlingame



 




Title:
CEO


 




2