alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 4.1


 


AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO WARRANT AGREEMENT


 


THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO WARRANT AGREEMENT
(this “Amendment”) is hereby entered into between Sensus Healthcare, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”),
and American Stock Transfer & Trust Company, LLC, a New York limited liability trust company, as Warrant Agent (the “Warrant
Agent”) as of June 4, 2019 (the “Effective Date”).


 


WITNESSETH:


 


WHEREAS, the Company previously
issued warrants (the “Warrants”) pursuant to that certain Warrant Agreement (the “Warrant Agreement”),
dated as of June 8, 2016, to acquire shares of Common Stock of the Company, par value $0.01 per share, in connection with the Company’s
initial public offering; and


 


WHEREAS, the Warrants are set to
expire on June 8, 2019 if not exercised prior to such date; and


 


WHEREAS, the Company and Warrant
Agent desire to extend the exercise period of the Warrants until June 8, 2020.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration
of the mutual covenants contained herein, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which is hereby
acknowledged, the Company and Warrant Agent hereby agree that the terms of the Warrant are hereby modified and, to the extent inconsistent
with the terms of the Warrant superseded as follows:


 


1. Amendment to
Warrant Agreement. In accordance with Section 3(b) of the Warrant Agreement, the Expiration Date for the Warrants is
hereby extended to June 8, 2020.


 


2. Capitalized Terms.
Capitalized terms herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Warrant Agreement, except as otherwise expressly provided
in this Amendment.


 


3. Effect of Amendment.
Except and to the extent modified by this Amendment, the provisions of the Warrant Agreement shall remain in full force and effect
and are hereby incorporated into and made a part of this Amendment as if fully stated herein.


 


[SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]


 






     


     


    

 





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company and
Warrant Agent have caused this Amendment to be executed as of the Effective Date.


 


	 	SENSUS HEALTHCARE, INC.
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ Arthur Levine
	 	Name:	Arthur Levine
	 	Title:	Chief Financial Officer
	 	 	 
	 	AMERICAN STOCK TRANSFER & 
	 	TRUST COMPANY, LLC
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ Michael
    Legregin
	 	Name:	Michael Legregin
	 	Title:	SVP


 


Signature
Page To Amendment No. 1 to Warrant Agreement
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Civil No. 06-cv-033-JD

Honda Accord 2000, et al.

PROCEDURAL ORDER

Tum Tin has filed a motion for appointment of counsel on the

grounds that he received notice that his house was going to be

seized (document no. 29). The government has objected to the

appointment of counsel. 

The government represents that Tum Tin has not resided at 60

Sawmill Hill Road in Berwick, Maine, although he is a record

owner of that property along with Nay Eth. Tum Tin is not

charged with any criminal offense, and therefore is not

represented by counsel under 18 U.S.C. § 3006(a). Since Mr. Tin

has not claimed that he has been using the 60 Sawmill Hill Road

property as his primary residence, and since the government

represents that he has not used the property as his primary

residence, he is not entitled to appointment of counsel pursuant

to 18 U.S.C. § 983(b)(2). Therefore, the motion for appointment

of counsel is denied. 

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

May 19, 2006

cc: Tum Tin, pro se

Edward C. Dial, Jr., Esquire

Paul W. Pappas, Esquire

Brian T. Tucker, Esquire

Jean B. Weld, Esquire

Case 1:06-cv-00033-JD Document 36 Filed 05/19/06 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 32





AMASYS CORPORATION





CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18,


UNITED STATES CODE)








Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Amasys Corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify with respect to the Quarterly Report of 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”), to the best of the undersigned’s knowledge 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.








February 2, 2011/s/ C.W. Gilluly, Ed.D.President, Chief Executive Officer and

Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 99.1


                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                    AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         I, MICHAEL ROSENFELD,  Primary Financial Officer of EduLink,  Inc. (the
"Company") do hereby  certify,  in accordance  with 18 U. S. C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, that, to my
knowledge:

         (1)      The  Quarterly  Report  on Form  10-Q of the  Company  for the
                  period  ending June 30,  2003 (the  "Periodic  Report")  fully
                  complies  with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
                  the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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


Dated August 19, 2003                   /s/ Michael Rosenfeld
                                        --------------------------------------
                                        Primary Financial Officer
**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 Cash Technologies, Inc. on Form 10-QSB
      for the period ended February 28, 2006, as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, being,
      Bruce Korman, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Edmund King, Chief
      Financial Officer of the Company, respectively, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      ss.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 operation of the Company.








Dated:
      April 19, 2006







/s/
                Bruce Korman
            /s/
                Edmund KingChief
                Executive Officer
            Chief
                Financial Officer




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002 (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 required by Section 906, has been
      provided to Cash Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by Cash Technologies,
      Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.
October 14, 2014

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

ROBERT DALE HARGER, Appellant

NO. 14-13-00959-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. 

Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the 

judgment. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED.

We further order appellant pay all costs expended in the appeal.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
**
**Exhibit 13.2**

**Certification by the Principal Financial Officer**

**Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

In connection with the Annual Report of MOGU Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F forthe fiscal year ended March 31, 2019 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 28, 2019, as amended by this amendment thereto (the “Report”), I, Helen Ting Wu, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, herebycertify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my 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 ofoperations of the Company. 

 
Date: July 3, 2019By: 
/s/ Helen Ting Wu
Name: Helen Ting WuTitle: Chief Financial Officer**
NO. 07-03-0095-CR

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL E

	APRIL 22, 2004

	______________________________

	LINDMAN WILLIAMS OPDYKE, APPELLANT

	v.

	THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 242ND DISTRICT COURT OF HALE COUNTY;

	NO. B11976-9503; HON. ED SELF, PRESIDING

	_______________________________

Before QUINN and REAVIS, JJ., and BOYD, S.J. 1

	This is an appeal from the revocation of community supervision (probation) originally granted appellant Lindman Williams Opdyke.  On August 16, 1995, appellant pled guilty to the offense of robbery and was sentenced to a ten year probated term in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and a fine of $10,000.  On December 17, 2002, upon his plea of true to the allegations contained in the State’s motion to revoke probation, appellant was sentenced to ten years confinement.  From this conviction, appellant gave a timely notice of appeal.

	Appellant’s appellate counsel has now filed an Anders brief with this court in which he states he has thoroughly examined the trial record and determined the appeal to be without merit.  See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 809-11 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).  Appellant indicates that he has mailed a copy of the brief to appellant.  He has also asked to be allowed to withdraw from the case.

	On November 7, 2003, our clerk notified appellant of our receipt of the Anders brief and counsel’s motion to withdraw and that appellant had a right to respond to the brief.  By letter dated November 25, 2003, appellate counsel certified that he had forwarded to appellant his copy of the record and enclosed appellant’s pro se motion for extension of time within which to file a pro se brief.  Appellant’s motion to extend was granted and the time within which he might file his pro se brief was extended to January 5, 2004.  However, we have not received a pro se brief or any further motions seeking an extension of time within which to file such a brief. 

	Before allowing counsel to withdraw, we must first satisfy ourselves that the attorney has provided the client with a diligent and thorough search of the record for any arguable claim that might support the client’s appeal, and then we must determine whether counsel has correctly concluded the appeal is frivolous.  See McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 486 U.S. 429, 442, 108 S.Ct. 1895, 100 L.Ed.2d 440 (1988).  We have also made an independent examination of the record to determine whether there are any arguable grounds that might support the appeal.  See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).  We have found no such ground and agree with counsel that this appeal is without merit and is frivolous.  Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974).

	Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.

							John T. Boyd

							Senior Justice

Do not publish.
Case 1:05-mc-00024-JM   Document 6   Filed 09/07/05   Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                       3,357,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               100,000
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,457,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          759,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                   108,568,000
<OTHER-SE>                                (105,870,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,457,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               345,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  154,000 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                19,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                172,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            172,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   172,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .02
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit A

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) Misc. No.

)

JAMES M. RAMALHO, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

DECLARATION

I, Alan Rowe, declare:

1. I am a duly commissioned Revenue Agent employed in the

Small Business/Self Employed Division of the Office of the Area

Director of the Internal Revenue Service at 1000 Elm Street,

Suite 900, Manchester, NH 03101. I make this declaration based

on personal knowledge or information provided to me in the course

of my employment with the Internal Revenue Service.

2. In my capacity as a Revenue Agent, I am conducting an

investigation to determine the tax liability of James M. Ramalho

for the years ending December 31, 2002, 2003 and 2004. 

3. In furtherance of the above investigation and in

accordance with 26 U.S.C. § 7602, I issued on October 7, 2005, an

administrative summons, Internal Revenue Service Form 2039, to

James M. Ramalho to give testimony and provide documents as

described in same summons. The summons is attached to the

petition as Exhibit B.

Case 1:06-mc-00001-JD Document 1-1 Filed 01/03/06 Page 1 of 2
2

4. In accordance with 26 U.S.C. § 7603, on October 7,

2005, I served an attested copy of the Internal Revenue Service

summons described in paragraph 3 above on the respondent,

James M. Ramalho, by handing it to Mr. Ramalho, as evident in the

certificate of service on the reverse side of the summons.

5. On November 3, 2005, James Ramalho did not appear in

response to the summons. Mr. Ramalho’s failure to comply with the

summons continues to the date of this Declaration.

6. The books, papers, records or other data sought by the

summons are not already in the possession of the Internal Revenue

Service.

7. All administrative steps required by the Internal

Revenue Code for issuance of a summons have been taken.

8. It is necessary to obtain the testimony and to examine

the books, papers, records or other data sought by the summons in

order to determine the federal tax liability of James M. Ramalho

for the periods ending December 31, 2002, 2003 and 2004.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is

true and correct.

Executed this 3rd day of January , 2006.

 /s/ Alan Rowe 

 Alan Rowe

Revenue Agent

Case 1:06-mc-00001-JD Document 1-1 Filed 01/03/06 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
registrant's unaudited March 31, 1999 financial statements and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                      14,224,000
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                            25,000,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                  4,991,000
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      32,534,000
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        32,607,000
<LOANS>                                     97,518,000
<ALLOWANCE>                                  1,165,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             178,098,000
<DEPOSITS>                                 159,660,000
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            727,000
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    19,028,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,317,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             178,098,000
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              2,049,000
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              721,000
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             2,770,000
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             705,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             705,000
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        2,065,000
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   40,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              1,375,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                972,000
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     972,000
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   617,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.22
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                       0
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             1,127,000
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    2,000
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            1,165,000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         1,165,000
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        294,000

        

</TABLE>
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

No. 95-5516. David FORGIONE, as Assignee of Harry Tofe l and Lena Tofel, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. DENNIS PIRTLE AGENCY, INC., American States Insurance Company, an Indiana Corporation, Defendants,State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, an Illinois corporation, DefendantAppellee, Herman B. Fine, Cerrato-Fine Agency, Inc ., a New York Corporation, Defendants-CrossDefendants Appellees, Fireman's Fund Insurance Companies, Defendant-Cross-Claimant. Jan. 7, 1998. Appeal from the United States Di strict Court for the Southern Di strict of Florida (No. 94-7254-CIVSJM ); Stanley J. Marcus, Judge. Before DUBINA, BLACK and CARNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: We previously certified to the Florida Supr eme Court the following dispositive question in this case: Can a claim for negligence by an insured ag ainst an insurance agent for failure to obtain proper insurance coverage be assigned to a third party? Forgione v. Dennis Pirtle Agency, Inc., 93 F.3d 758, 761 (11th Cir.1996). The Supreme Court of Florida has now definitively answered that state law question in the affi rmative, disagreeing with the district court. See David Forgione v. Dennis Pirtle Agency, Inc., 701 So.2d 557 (Fla.1997). We are indebted to the Florida Supreme Court for its authoritative resolution of the controlling state lawissue. The judgment of the district court is REVE RSED, and this case is REMANDED for further proceedings.