alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.2


  FORM OF


Amendment


 


This agreement made as of this 31st day of July 2019
by and between Ondas Networks Inc. (the “Company”) and the undersigned lender (‘Lender”).


 


Whereas the Company is indebted
to the Lender for certain loan principle and interest pursuant to certain loan agreements and notes as amended (“Loan”);
and


 


Whereas the Parties wish to amend certain terms respecting the
Loan.


 


It is hereby agreed:


 


		1.	All principal and interest outstanding under the Loan and subsequently accruing through to July
31, 2019 shall be defined as and constitute the new principal amount of Lender’s Loans to the Company (“New Loan Principal”).



 


		2.	The New Loan Principal shall be payable in full on September 30, 2021 together with interest thereon,
or at any time earlier in whole or part at Company’s discretion without notice or bonus.



 


		3.	All other terms of the Loan shall continue.



  


________________


   


Ondas Networks Inc.


  


	By:	 	 
	Name:  	Eric Brock
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

FAUSTO ANTONIO CASTRO 

MENDOZA, 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

 8:23CR61

ORDER

This matter is before the court on defendant Fausto Antonio Castro Mendoza’s 

Unopposed Motion to Continue Trial [57]. Counsel needs additional time for plea 

negotiations. The co-defendant does not object to the continuance. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Continue Trial [39] is granted, as follows:

1. The jury trial, as to both defendants, now set for September 26, 2023, is 

continued to December 19, 2023.

2. In accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A), the court finds that the ends of 

justice will be served by granting this continuance and outweigh the interests 

of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial. Any additional time arising 

as a result of the granting of this motion, that is, the time between today’s date 

and December 19, 2023, shall be deemed excludable time in any computation 

of time under the requirement of the Speedy Trial Act. Failure to grant a 

continuance would deny counsel the reasonable time necessary for effective 

preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. 18 U.S.C. § 

3161(h)(6), (7)(A) & (B)(iv).

3. No further continuances will be granted without requesting a hearing 

before the undersigned magistrate judge.

DATED: September 19, 2023

BY THE COURT:

s/ Susan M. Bazis

United States Magistrate Judge

8:23-cr-00061-BCB-MDN Doc # 58 Filed: 09/19/23 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 109
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael Gilliard, Also Known as Leonard James, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Agresta, J.), both rendered December 5, 1983, convicting him of robbery in the first degree under indictment No. 886/83 and robbery in the first degree under indictment No. 2221/83, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences. The appeals bring up for review the denial, after a hearing (Leahy, J.), of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion made under indictment No. 886/83 which was to suppress identification testimony and statements made by him to law enforcement officials.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

The defendant initially contends that the police lacked probable cause to arrest him. We disagree. The statement made by the codefendant Eric Cherry implicating the defendant in the robbery of a supermarket which occurred on February 22, 1983, provided ample probable cause for his arrest *(see, People v Berzups,*49 NY2d 417; *People v Bostick,*151 AD2d 768).

We also find unpersuasive the defendant’s contention that his statement to the police regarding the supermarket robbery was rendered involuntary because it was elicited in the absence of his guardian. The record demonstrates that the police contacted an adult when the defendant asked them to do so, and there is no indication in the record that the police held the defendant beyond the reach of the adult whose presence he had requested *(see, People v Pica,*159 AD2d 524; *cf., People v Bevilacqua,*45 NY2d 508; *People v Rivera,*78 AD2d 556).

Similarly unavailing is the defendant’s contention that the lineup in which he appeared was impermissibly suggestive and thus gave rise to a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification. Even if it had been suggestive, however, suppression of the complaining witness’s in-court identification of the defendant would not have been required. Based upon the duration of time that the witness observed the defendant during the robbery of the supermarket and the good lighting conditions at that time, we conclude that there is ample evidence in the hearing record to support the court’s determination that an independent source for the in-court identification existed *(see, People v Adams,*53 NY2d 241; *People v Dixon,*158 AD2d 467). Therefore, the hearing court properly denied suppression.

*327We have examined the defendant’s remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Sullivan, Harwood and Miller, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 76 Received in Senate (RDS)]

  1st Session
H. J. RES. 76

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            December 5, 2001

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2002, and 
                          for other purposes.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Public Law 107-44 is 
further amended by striking

the date specified in section 107(c) and inserting in lieu thereof 
``December 15, 2001''.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 5, 2001.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
**EXHIBIT 31.2**
**CERTIFICATIONS**
I, Charles E. Mueller, Jr., certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Archstone-SmithOperating Trust (the “registrant”). 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this quarterly report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cashflows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand have:
 a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervisionto ensure that material information relating to the registrant,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s boardof trustees (or persons performing the equivalent function);
 a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial data; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.       BY:      /S/ CHARLES E. MUELLER, JR.         Charles E. Mueller, Jr.    *Chief Financial Officer*    *(Principal Financial Officer)* 
Date: August 6, 2004
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Mara Sabinson

v. Civil No. 05-cv-424-SM

Dartmouth College Trustees

O R D E R

Granted (document no. 49) in part. Plaintiff responded to

the defendant's motion for summary judgment without noting a need

for essential additional discovery. Now plaintiff seems to claim

(again) that the Harris deposition is necessary to resolution of

the summary judgment motion. Defendant seems to tacitly agree,

as it has rescheduled the deposition. The court is not inclined

to deal with the issues raised in piecemeal fashion. The motion

is granted as follows: Plaintiff may supplement her objection to

defendant's summary judgment motion on or before May 18, 2007;

defendant may file it's reply to plaintiff's objection and, if

one is filed, her supplemental objection, on or before June 1,

2007. So ordered. 

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

April 20, 2007

cc: K. William Clauson, Esq.

George E. Spaneas, Esq.

Bruce W. Felmly, Esq.

Michael T. Pearson, Esq.

Case 1:05-cv-00424-SM Document 51 Filed 04/20/07 Page 1 of 1
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Lance Thibault, ChiefFinancial Officer, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed thisquarterly report on Form 10-Q of deCODE genetics, Inc.;

 

2. Based on my knowledge, thisreport does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge, thefinancial statements, and other financial information included in this reportfairly present in all material respects, the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report.

 

4. The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

a)              designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

b)    [Paragraph omitted inaccordance with SEC transition instructions contained in SEC Release 34-47986]

 

c)              evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thereport based on such evaluation; and

 

d)             disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5. The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):

 

a)              allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and

 

b)             any fraud, whether or not material, that involves managementor other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting.

 

 
| Dated: August 6, 2004 | /s/ Lance  Thibault      |   |
|-----------------------|--------------------------|--------|
|                  | Lance  Thibault          |
|                  | Chief  Financial Officer |

 

1

----
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Dwayne A. Reddick

v. 05-cv-256-SM

United States

Department of Justice, et al.

ORDER

Re: Document No. 17, Response re: Report and Recommendations

Ruling: The proposed order is approved as drafted and entered

as an order of the court, subject to plaintiff’s filing any

objection he may have within thirty(30) days of the date of this

order. (Plaintiff should understand that his remaining claims are

being construed as a motion to set aside the prior forfeiture, that

the prior forfeiture will be set aside, that the case will be

closed, and that the government will likely begin forfeiture

proceedings anew, giving plaintiff proper notice and opportunity to

be heard.) 

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief District Judge

Date: July 24, 2006

cc: Dwayne Reddick, pro se

Jean Weld, AUSA

Case 1:05-cv-00256-SM Document 19 Filed 07/24/06 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 10.14
 
  
 Restricted Stock Common Stock Company Plan
 Rights as Stockholder
 Restrictions; Delivery
  Vesting of Restricted Stock
 
    
    25% of the shares of Restricted Stock will vest on the first anniversary of the
Grant Date;
    
    25% of the shares of Restricted Stock will vest on the second anniversary of the
Grant Date;
    
    25% of the shares of Restricted Stock will vest on the third anniversary of the
Grant Date; and




---



##### 




    
    25% of the shares of Restricted Stock will vest on the fourth anniversary of the
Grant Date.
  Tax Withholding
 Representations and Warranties Securities Act
 Legend.




---



##### 



Miscellaneous
 Construction
 Dilution
 Governing Law
 VIRTUAL RADIOLOGIC CORPORATIONBy:Name:Title:GRANTEE:
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 this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Maxco, Inc. (the
“Company”) for the period ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Max A. Coon, as
      Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§
1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that:




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




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




Date: February
      16, 2007


/s/ Max
              A.
              CoonMax
              A. CoonChief
              Executive Officer







A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
Financial Data Schedule
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           9,599
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,315
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                18,885
<PP&E>                                         526,324
<DEPRECIATION>                               (312,358)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 243,702
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          300,411
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,854
<OTHER-SE>                                    (70,640)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   243,702
<SALES>                                         26,761
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                26,671
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   17,893
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,891
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              24,768
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (17,791)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (17,791)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (17,791)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.62)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.62)
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Estate of Margaret P. Lunt

v. 99-cv-398-PB

Gregory Alan Gaylor

ORDER

Re: Document No. 87, Motion to Clarify Stay

Ruling: Defendant did not bring a counterclaim for injunctive

relief against the plaintiff and thus it is not entitled to seek a

preliminary injunction. Instead, document 83 is a request for an

order precluding plaintiff from proceeding to trial in this action

without an accounting. While I do not believe that defendant is

entitled to compel plaintiff to provide him with an accounting, I

do not need to resolve the question on the merits now because I

have taken the case off the trial list. Like all other motions

that were pending when I made this decision, document 83 was denied

without prejudice. If the case does not become moot after the

state court trial is completed, either party may ask to have the

case set for trial and any motion denied without prejudice may be

refiled.

/s/ Paul Barbadoro

Paul Barbadoro

U.S. District Judge

Date: March 14, 2006

cc: David Bownes, Esq.

Gregory A. Gaylor, pro se

Case 1:04-cv-00398-PB Document 89 Filed 03/14/06 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 34.1

 

 

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

 

 

Board of Directors

Mechanics Bank

Walnut Creek, California

 

 

We have examined management’s assertion, included in the accompanying Management’s Report on Assessment of Compliance with SEC Regulation AB Servicing Criteria, that Mechanics Bank (the “Bank”) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB, as of and for the year ended December 31, 2019 (the “Reporting Period”) for the asset-backed securities transactions for which the Bank acts as servicer of automotive retail installment sales contracts included in private and public securitizations sponsored by the Bank (the “Platform”), except for servicing criteria 1122(d)(2)(iv), 1122(d)(2)(vi), 1122(d)(3)(ii)-(iv), 1122(d)(4)(ix)-(xiii) and 1122(d)(4)(xv), for which the Bank has determined are not applicable to the activities performed with respect to the Platform. Appendix B to management’s report identifies the individual asset-backed transactions and securities defined by management as constituting the Platform. Management is responsible for the Bank’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assertion based on our examination. 

 

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Bank’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of selected asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Platform, testing of selected servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the Bank processed those selected transactions and performed those servicing activities in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Our procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by the Bank during the period covered by the report. Our procedures were not designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Bank during the period covered by this report. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Bank’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. 

 

In our opinion, management’s assertion that the Bank complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2019 for the Platform is fairly stated, in all material respects.

 

 

 

/s/ Crowe LLP

 

Sacramento, California

March 25, 2020
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 05-cr-92-01-SM

Lee Wendall

O R D E R

Defendant Wendall’s motion to continue the final pretrial conference and

trial is granted (document 10). Trial has been rescheduled for the November

2005 trial period. Defendant Wendall shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights

not later than July 6, 2005. On the filing of such waiver, his continuance shall

be effective. 

The Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance

outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, 18

U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that failure to grant a continuance would

unreasonably deny defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective

preparation taking into account the exercise of due diligence under the

circumstances. 

Final Pretrial Conference: October 21, 2005 at 4:30 p.m.

Jury Selection: November 1, 2005 at 9:30 a.m.

Case 1:05-cr-00092-SM Document 11 Filed 06/27/05 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

June 27, 2005

cc: Bjorn Lange, Esq.

Don Feith, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

Case 1:05-cr-00092-SM Document 11 Filed 06/27/05 Page 2 of 2