alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|Exhibit
23.1


CONSENT OF
ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the
incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8) pertaining
to the 1999 Equity Incentive Plan, 1999 Non-Employee Directors Stock
Option Plan and the 1999 Employee Stock Purchase Plan; and in the Registration
Statement (Form S-8) pertaining to the 1999 Equity Incentive Plan of Scientific
Learning Corporation of our report dated February 8, 2002, except for the second
paragraph of Note 8, as to which the date is March 6, 2002 with respect to the
financial statements and schedule of Scientific Learning Corporation included in
this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2001.

/s/ Ernst & Young



Walnut Creek, California
March 28, 2002
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

Darryl B. Kaplan,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 09-10047

Experian, Incorporated, et al., Honorable Sean F. Cox

Defendants.

_________________________________/

ORDER DENYING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (DOCKET ENTRY NO. 97)

Plaintiff Darryl Kaplan (“Plaintiff”) brought this action against Defendant Experian, Inc.

(“Experian”), and two other credit reporting agencies, asserting that each agency violated the

Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”). 

On April 9, 2010, this Court issued an Opinion & Order granting summary judgment in

favor of Defendant Experian. In an Order issued on April 21, 2010, however, the Court set aside

the original opinion because it had been issued without the benefit of Plaintiff’s Reply Brief and

attached affidavit.

After reviewing that Reply Brief and Affidavit, the Court issued an Amended Opinion &

Order granting summary judgment in favor of Experian on May 26, 2010. On June 9, 2010,

Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Reconsideration of that Opinion & Order.

Local Rule 7.1(g) provides that a motion for reconsideration should only be granted if the

movant demonstrates that the Court and the parties have been misled by a palpable defect and
2

that a different disposition of the case must result from a correction of such a palpable defect. 

L.R. 7.1(g). Local Rule 7.1(g) further provides that “the court will not grant motions for

rehearing or reconsideration that merely present the same issues ruled upon by the court, either

expressly or by reasonable implication.”

Here, Plaintiff urges the Court to reverse its summary judgment ruling based on factual

and legal arguments that were not advanced during the briefing of the motion. “However, a

motion for reconsideration is not properly used as a vehicle to re-hash old arguments or to

advance positions that could have been argued earlier but were not.” Smith v. Mount Pleasant

Public Schools, 298 F.Supp.2d 636, 637 (E.D. Mich. 2003); see also Sault St. Marie Tribe of

Chippewa Indians v. Engler, 146 F.3d 367, 374 (6th Cir. 1998)(holding that a party is not

permitted to raise new legal arguments on a motion for reconsideration that could have been

raised earlier).

The Court concludes that Plaintiff’s motion fails to identify a palpable defect with the

May 26, 2010 Opinion & Order. According, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for

Reconsideration is DENIED.

S/Sean F. Cox 

Sean F. Cox

United States District Judge

Dated: September 20, 2010

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

September 20, 2010, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

Jennifer Hernandez 

Case Manager
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 117 (Monday, June 17, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 30616]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15311]



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

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Dkt. 6600]


P. Lorillard Co.; Prohibited Trade Practices and Affirmative 
Corrective Actions

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Set aside order.

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

SUMMARY: This order reopens a 1958 consent order--which required 
Lorillard to offer compensation for promotional services on 
proportionally equal terms to all competing companies that distribute 
its tobacco and other products--and sets aside the consent order 
pursuant to the Commission's Sunset Policy Statement, under which the 
Commission presumes that the public interest requires terminating 
competition orders that are more than 20 years old.

DATES: Consent order issued May 7, 1958. Set aside order issued August 
24, 1995.\1\

    \1\ Copies of the Consent Order and SEt Aside Order are 
available from the Commission's Public Reference Branch, H-130, 6th 
Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Roberta Baruch, FTC/S-2115, Washington, D.C. 20580. (202) 326-2861.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Matter of P. Lorillard Co. The 
prohibited trade practices and/or corrective actions are removed as 
indicated.

    Authority: Sec. 6, 38 Stat. 721; 15 U.S.C. 46. Interprets or 
applies sec. 2, 49 Stat. 1526; 15 U.S.C. 13.
Donald S. Clark,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-15311 Filed 6-14-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-M
*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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 15, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-60863

Summary Calendar

ALI HUSSAIN VIRANI,

Petitioner,

versus

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

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

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A78 999 848

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

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ali Hussain Virani petitions for review of an order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the immigration

judge’s decision to deny his application for withholding of removal

under both the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and the

Convention Against Torture (CAT). Virani argues that the BIA erred

in determining that he had not established past persecution based

on his political affiliation or that it was more likely than not

that he would be tortured if he were returned to Pakistan. He

contends that he established his eligibility for withholding of
2

removal under both the INA and the CAT by adducing evidence that he

was arrested because of his political activities and that he was

beaten and deprived of food while incarcerated.

The record evidence in the instant case does not compel a

conclusion contrary to the BIA’s determination that Virani was not

entitled to withholding of removal under the INA. See Chun v. INS,

40 F.3d 76, 78-79 (5th Cir. 1994). The record evidence also fails

to establish that Virani has a reasonable fear of future

persecution based on his political associations, especially because

he is no longer a member of the PML. See Faddoul v. INS, 37 F.3d

185, 188 (5th Cir. 1994). 

Virani’s CAT claim is also without merit, as he has failed to

show that he will likely be tortured if he is returned to Pakistan.

See Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 907 (5th Cir. 2002). Virani’s

petition for review is DENIED.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

SHARON K. HUBERT, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 08-14802 

-vs- Hon. Patrick J. Duggan 

 Magistrate: R. Steven Whalen 

OAKWOOD HEALTHCARE, INC., 

A Michigan Non-Profit Corporation, 

PEROT SYSTEMS CORPORATION, 

a Delaware corporation, PEROT 

SYSTEMS REVENUE CYCLE 

SOLUTIONS, INC., f/k/a ADVANCED 

RECEIVABLES STRATEGY, INC., 

a Delaware corporation, jointly and severally, 

 Defendants. 

____________________________________________________________________________/

Barry S. Fagan (P34275) 

DIB, FAGAN and BRAULT, P.C. 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

25892 Woodward Avenue 

Royal Oak, MI 48067-0910 

(248) 542-6300 

bfagan@dibandfagan.com 

Jennifer L. Sabourin (P55720) 

Brian Schwartz (P69018) 

Miller Canfield Paddock & Stone, PLC 

Attorney for Defendants 

150 West Jefferson, Suite 2500 

Detroit, MI 48226-4415 

(313) 963-6420 

sabourin@millercanfield.com 

____________________________________________________________________________/ 

STIPULATED ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE AND WITHOUT COSTS

At a session of said Court held in 

the City of Detroit, County of Wayne, State of Michigan 

on April 7, 2009

PRESENT: Hon. Patrick J. Duggan 

This matter having come before the Court on the parties’ Stipulated Order of Dismissal 

With Prejudice and Without Costs or Attorney Fees, and the Court having read and filed said 

Stipulation, and the Court being otherwise fully advised in the premises; 

2:08-cv-14802-PJD-RSW Doc # 17 Filed 04/07/09 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 147
-2- 

 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the above 

captioned matter shall be dismissed in its entirety with prejudice and without costs or attorney 

fees to any party. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this Order completely resolves the 

last pending claim and closes the case.

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 s/Patrick J. Duggan 

 Patrick J. Duggan 

 United States District Judge 

Dated: April 7, 2009 

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

record on April 7, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. 

 s/Marilyn Orem 

 Case Manager

 

STIPULATED AND AGREED TO BY: 

s/Barry S. Fagan (w/consent) 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

25892 Woodward Avenue 

Royal Oak, MI 48067-0910 

(248) 542-6300 

bfagan@dibandfagan.com

P34275 

s/ Jennifer L. Sabourin 

Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone, P.L.C. 

2:08-cv-14802-PJD-RSW Doc # 17 Filed 04/07/09 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 148
-3- 

Attorneys for Defendant 

150 West Jefferson, Suite 2500 

Detroit, Michigan 48226 

(313) 963-6420 

sabourin@millercanfield.com

P55720 

DELIB:3058664.1\113877-00005 

2:08-cv-14802-PJD-RSW Doc # 17 Filed 04/07/09 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 149
#### Donald HOUGHTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 64692.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Five.

Feb. 1, 1994.

Tamara Detloff, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Becky Owenson Kilpatrick, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before GARY M. GAERTNER, C.J., and PUDLOWSKI and SIMON, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Donald Houghton, appeals from the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the legal file and find the findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous. As we further find an extended opinion would have no precedential value, we affirm the motion court’s order pursuant to Rules 84.16(b) and 30.25(b). A memorandum, solely for the use of the parties here involved, has been provided explaining the reasons for our decision.
Adamis Pharmaceuticals Corporation 8K


Exhibit 10.1

 


AMENDMENT TO CONVERTIBLE
PROMISSORY NOTE


This Amendment to Convertible Promissory
Note (this “Amendment”) is dated as of March 26, 2014 and is entered into by and between Adamis Pharmaceuticals
Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) and Robert Noel Robinson (the “Lender”).


1.                 
Background. The Company and Lender have previously entered into a Convertible Promissory Note December 31, 2012,
and a Consent, Waiver and Amendment Regarding Convertible Promissory Note (such note, as amended, referred to as the “Note”).
The Company and Lender desire to amend the Note in the manner set forth below. This Amendment shall be effective as of immediately
before the Maturity Date (as defined in the Note) of the Note. Capitalized terms not defined herein will have the meanings given
to those terms in the Note. The parties hereby agree that the Note shall be amended as set forth below.


2.                 
Maturity Date. The Maturity Date of the Note is hereby amended to be June 30, 2014.


3.                 
Conversion Right. The conversion price set forth in the first sentence of Section 4 of the Note, which was proportionately
adjusted as a result of the Company’s 1-for-17 reverse stock split of its common stock effected in December 2013, is hereby
amended to be $6.00 per share, on a post-reverse split basis.


4.                 
Other Indebtedness. The Company agrees that from the date of this Amendment as first set forth above until the Maturity
Date, as long as any unconverted portion of the Note remains outstanding the Company will not (i) enter into any agreement, arrangement
or transaction that contains any prohibition or restriction on the Company’s payment of any principal and interest balance
of the Note on the Maturity Date, or (ii) incur any senior secured indebtedness that results in the Note being subordinated in
right of payment to such other indebtedness.


In the event of any
inconsistency between the terms of this Amendment and the terms of the Note, the terms of this Amendment shall control. Except
to the extent expressly amended pursuant to this Amendment, the terms and provisions of the Note, as amended, shall remain in full
force and effect without modification. This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be an original
and all of which shall together constitute one and the same document. This Amendment shall be governed by the laws of the State
of California, notwithstanding its conflict of laws provisions.





[SIGNATURE PAGE
TO FOLLOW]




    	1



    	 



    

IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
the parties have executed this Amendment to Convertible Promissory Note as of the date first above written.


  


 





	LENDER:	 
	 	 	 
	By:	
        /s/ Robert Noel Robinson
	 
	Name:	Robert Noel Robinson	 







 


 


 





	ADAMIS PHARMACEUTICALS CORPORATION:
	 	 	 
	By:	
        /s/
        Dennis J. Carlo
	 
	Name:	Dennis J. Carlo	 
	Its:	Chief Executive Officer	 







 


 


 


 


 


 


[SIGNATURE PAGE TO

AMENDMENT TO CONVERTIBLE PROMISSORY NOTE]
EXHIBIT 99.1
 Certification of our principal executive officer and principal financial officer relating to our  participation in the Capital Purchase Program of the Troubled Asset Relief Program
 Mercantile Bank Corporation UST# 449
 Certification of Principal Executive Officer




---



##### 



/s/ Michael H. Price
    (Signature)
    Date: March 14, 2011Michael H. PriceChairman of the Board, President
and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)




---



##### 



Certification of Principal Financial Officer




---



##### 



/s/ Charles E. Christmas
    (Signature)
    Date: March 14, 2011Charles E. ChristmasSenior Vice President,
Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
(Principal Financial Officer)
Exhibit 32.2





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


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 accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Ecoland International, Inc. for the fiscal quarter ending February 28, 2011, I, David Wallace, Chief Financial Officer of Ecoland International, Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:





1.          Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ending August 31, 2011, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ending August 31, 2011, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Ecoland International, Inc.





Date: October 12, 2011





/s/ David WallaceDavid Wallace, Chief Financial Officer of Ecoland

International, Inc.
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 113 (Tuesday, June 11, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 29539]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14713]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE


Notice of Determination of Need

AGENCY: Department of Defense (DoD).

SUMMARY: The Director of Defense Procurement has determined that a need 
exists to facilitate the private financing of defense contracts, 
particularly contracts to be performed by small businesses, by using 
provisions precluding reductions or setoffs in defense contracts 
containing the Assignment of Claims clause when claims have been 
assigned.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 11, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. John Galbraith, (703) 697-6710.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 2451 of the Federal Acquisition 
Streamlining Act of 1994 amended Section 3737 of the Revised Statutes 
(41 U.S.C. 15) to authorize use of ``no-setoff'' provisions in 
contracts authorizing contractor assignments of claims, upon a 
determination of need. The President delegated the authority to make 
these determinations of need to the Secretaries of Defense and Energy, 
the Administrator of General Services, and the heads of all other 
departments and agencies, and authorized further redelegation.
    A provision in DoD contracts limiting reduction or setoff as 
provided in Section 3737 of the Revised Statutes facilitates the use of 
private financing of DoD contracts, and therefore facilitates the 
participation of businesses, especially small businesses, in the 
procurements of DoD thereby increasing competition in these 
procurements, to the benefit of DoD.
    Pursuant to the Presidential delegation dated October 3, 1995, the 
Secretary of Defense delegation dated February 5, 1996, and the Under 
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology delegation dated 
February 23, 1996, the Director of Defense Procurement on May 10, 1996, 
made the following determination and ordered its publication in the 
Federal Register in accordance with the authorizing statute:

Determination of Need Under Section 3737 of the Revised Statutes

    Pursuant to section 2451 of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining 
Act of 1994, Public law 103-355 (41 U.S.C. 15), and in accordance with 
the authority delegated to me by the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Acquisition and Technology on February 23, 1996, I determine that a 
need exists to facilitate the private financing of defense contracts, 
particularly contracts to be performed by small businesses. 
Consequently, any contract of the Department of Defense, except any 
such contract under which full payment has been made, may provide or be 
amended without consideration to provide that payments under such 
contract shall not be subject to reduction or setoff.
Michele P. Peterson,
Executive Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations Council.
[FR Doc. 96-14713 Filed 6-10-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-M
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 131 (Monday, July 8, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 35772]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17210]


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


DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; 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 
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis 
Panel (SEP) meeting:

    Name of SEP: Unsolicited AIDS Related Career Award, Conference 
and Supplement Applications
    Date: July 26, 1996
    Time: 8:30 a.m.
    Place: Doubletree Hotel, Rockville Room, 1750 Rockville Pike, 
Rockville, MD 20852, (301) 468-1100.
    Contact Person: Dr. Paula Strickland, Scientific Review Adm., 
6003 Executive Boulevard, Solar Bldg., Room 4C02, Bethesda, MD 
20892-7610, (301) 402-0643.
    Purpose/Agenda: To evaluate grant applications.
    The meeting will be closed in accordance with the provisions set 
forth in sections 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 Programs Nos. 93.855, 
Immunology, Allergic and Immunologic Diseases Research; 93.856, 
Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes 
of Health.)

    Dated: July 1, 1996.
Susan K. Feldman,
Committee Management Officer, NIH.
[FR Doc. 96-17210 Filed 7-5-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M