alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 189 (Monday, September 29, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56616-56617]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-22753]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Advisory Committee for Engineering; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 
as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following 
meeting:

    Name: Advisory Committee for Engineering (1170).
    Date/Time: October 15, 2008: 12 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.; October 16, 
2008: 8 a.m.-12 p.m.
    Place: National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 
375, Arlington, Virginia 22230.
    Type of Meeting: Open.
    Contact Person: Shirah Pope, National Science Foundation, 4201 
Wilson Boulevard, Suite 505, Arlington, Virginia 22230.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice, recommendations and 
counsel on major goals and policies pertaining to engineering 
programs and activities.

Agenda

Wednesday, October 15

Emerging Frontiers in Research and Innovation Update (EFRI)

[[Page 56617]]

Discussion of Potential Future ENG Topics
Overview of EHR Programs for Broadening Participation

Thursday, October 16

Report from Subcommittee on Broadening Participation and Discussion
Overview of the Division of Electrical Communications and Cyber 
Systems (ECCS)
ECCS Committee of Visitor's Report
Discussion with Arden Bement, Director and Kathie Olsen, Deputy 
Director, NSF

    Dated: September 23, 2008.
Susanne Bolton,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. E8-22753 Filed 9-26-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
EXHIBIT 32.1

         CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) UNDER THE SECURITIES
     EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 AND 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 Manchester  Technologies,  Inc.
(the  "Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period ended  January 31, 2005,  as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I, Barry R. Steinberg,  Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify, to the
best of my knowledge,  pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) under the Securities  Exchange
Act of 1934 and 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
     respect, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Date:   March 14, 2005                               /S/ Barry R. Steinberg
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                     Barry R. Steinberg
                                                     Chief Executive Officer



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
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.
Exhibit 10.3


 


SECOND AMENDMENT TO

SERIES A PREFERRED STOCK PURCHASE AGREEMENT


 


This SECOND AMENDMENT
TO SERIES A PREFERRED STOCK PURCHASE AGREEMENT (the “Amendment”) is made and entered into as of September 9,
2019, by and between Allied Physicians of California, a Professional Medical Corporation, a California corporation (the “Company”
or “Seller”), and AP-AMH Medical Corporation, a California professional medical corporation (“Buyer”).


 


A.           Seller
and Buyer have previously entered into that certain Series A Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement dated as of May 10, 2019, as amended
by that certain First Amendment to Series A Stock Purchase Agreement dated as of August 26, 2019 (together, the “Preferred
Stock Purchase Agreement”).


 


B.           Seller
and Buyer desire to further amend the Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement as set forth herein.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in
consideration of the premises and of the mutual agreements, representations, warranties, provisions and covenants herein contained,
the parties hereto, each intending to be bound hereby, agree as follows:


 


1.          Definitions.
Capitalized terms used but not defined in this Amendment shall have the meanings given to such terms in the Preferred Stock Purchase
Agreement.


 


2.          Definition
of Excluded Assets. Exhibit A to the Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement is hereby amended by amending and restating the definition
of “Excluded Assets” in Section 1 thereof to read in full as follows:


 


“Excluded
Assets” means (i) assets received from the sale of shares of the Series A Preferred equal to the Series A Purchase Price,
(ii) the assets of the Company that are not Healthcare Services Assets, including the Company’s equity interests in
Universal Care, Inc., Apollo Medical Holdings, Inc., and any entity that is primarily engaged in the business of owning, leasing,
developing or otherwise operating real estate, (iii) any assets acquired with the proceeds of the sale, assignment or other
disposition of any of the assets described in clauses (i) or (ii), and (iv) any proceeds of the assets described in clauses
(i), (ii) and (iii).


 


3.          Effect
of Amendment. Except as expressly amended by this Amendment, all of the terms of the Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement shall
remain unchanged and in full force and effect. The provisions of Article X of the Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement are incorporated
in this Amendment by this reference, mutatis mutandis.


 


[Signatures appear on the following page.]


 




    1


     


    




 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
this Amendment has been executed as of the date first above written.


 


	 	BUYER:
	 	 
	 	AP-AMH MEDICAL CORPORATION
	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ Thomas Lam                 
	 	Name: 	Thomas Lam, M.D.
	 	Title:	Chief Executive Officer
	 	 
	 	SELLER:
	 	 
	 	ALLIED PHYSICIANS OF CALIFORNIA, 
	 	A PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL CORPORATION
	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ Terry Lee, M.D.
	 	Name:	Terry Lee, M.D.
	 	Title:	Independent Committee Director


 




    S-1
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1994 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1994

To waive the time limitation specified by law for the award of certain 
  military decorations in order to allow the posthumous award of the 
Congressional Medal of Honor to Doris Miller for actions while a member 
                    of the Navy during World War II.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 24, 2001

   Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas (for herself, Mr. Edwards, Ms. 
Jackson-Lee of Texas, Mrs. Meek of Florida, Mr. Owens, Mr. Scott, Mrs. 
      Clayton, Mr. Clay, Mr. Jackson of Illinois, Mr. Thompson of 
Mississippi, Mr. Cummings, Mrs. Jones of Ohio, Mr. Hilliard, Mr. Lewis 
  of Georgia, Mr. Watt of North Carolina, and Ms. Lee) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To waive the time limitation specified by law for the award of certain 
  military decorations in order to allow the posthumous award of the 
Congressional Medal of Honor to Doris Miller for actions while a member 
                    of the Navy during World War II.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That the time 
limitations specified in section 6248(a) of title 10, United States 
Code, shall not apply with respect to the posthumous award of the 
Congressional Medal of Honor under section 6241 of such title to Doris 
Miller (service number 356-12-35) for acts of heroism during World War 
II while a member of the United States Navy.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 190 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 190

   To clarify the effect on the citizenship of an individual of the 
                individual's birth in the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 3, 2001

  Mr. Stump introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To clarify the effect on the citizenship of an individual of the 
                individual's birth in the United States.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. BASIS OF CITIZENSHIP CLARIFIED.

    In the exercise of its powers under section 5 of the Fourteenth 
Article of Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the 
Congress has determined and hereby declares that any person born after 
the date of enactment of this Act to a mother who is neither a citizen 
or national of the United States nor admitted to the United States as a 
lawful permanent resident, and which person is a citizen or national of 
another country of which either of his or her natural parents is a 
citizen or national, or is entitled upon application to become a 
citizen or national of such country, shall be considered as born 
subject to the jurisdiction of that foreign country and not subject to 
the jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of section 1 
of such Article and shall therefore not be a citizen of the United 
States or of any State solely by reason of birth in the United States.
                                 <all>
```
29

B.9. Number of Agricultural Bank Failures

Year Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total

1984...... 3 7 10 12 32

1985...... 12 21 17 18 68

1986...... 14 14 21 16 65

1987...... 22 19 12 16 69

1988...... 11 6 12 7 36

1989...... 5 7 5 5 22

1990...... 3 5 6 3 17

1991...... 2 2 3 1 8

1992...... 1 1 1 4 7

1993...... 1 2 2 0 5

1994...... 0 0 0 0 0

1995...... 0 0 0 0 0

1996...... 0 2 0 0 2

1997...... 0 0 0 1 1

1998...... 0 0 1 0 1

1999...... 0 1 0 0 1

2000...... 0 0 0 0 0

2001...... 0 0 0 0 0

2002...... 1 0 0 1 2

2003...... 0 1 0 0 1

2004...... 0 1 0 0 1

2005...... 0 0 0 0 0

 Note. Data exclude banks assisted to prevent failure. Industrial banks and

mutual savings banks also are excluded. Agricultural banks are defined in

the introduction to section B.

 n.a. Not available.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

 v. Case No. 08-cr-108-01-SM

Denise Lee

O R D E R

Defendant's assented-to motion to continue the trial (document no. 9) is

granted. Trial has been rescheduled for the February 2009 trial period. Defendant

shall file a Waiver of Speedy Trial Rights not later than December 5, 2008. 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

the defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation taking into

account the exercise of due diligence under the circumstances.

Case 1:08-cr-00108-SM Document 10 Filed 11/21/08 Page 1 of 2
2

Final Pretrial Conference: February 9, 2009 at 4:30 PM 

Jury Selection: February 18, 2009 at 9:30 AM

SO ORDERED.

November 21, 2008 _________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

cc: Charles Keefe, Esq.

 Terry Olilla, AUSA

 U. S. Probation

 U. S. Marshal

Case 1:08-cr-00108-SM Document 10 Filed 11/21/08 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 10.23


                      REFERRAL FEE AGREEMENT


This Agreement is dated July 23 , 2004, and is among and between GK
Intelligent Systems, Inc. (the "Company") and Shay Kronfeld (who hereinafter
shall be referred to as the "Referrer.")    This Agreement is a non-exclusive
agreement and shall remain in effect until either party cancels it in writing
at which time the Agreement will immediately terminate.

The Referrer shall receive a referral fee as described below as soon as
practical after each Closing of an acquisition that is directly the result of
a facilitated introduction by the Referrer to the Company.   In the event this
Agreement is terminated by either party, the Company shall pay a referral fee
to the Referrer for all facilitated introductions they have made that result
in a Closed acquisition by the Company within twelve months after the
termination of the Agreement.

The referral fee shall be calculated by taking the total consideration paid
for an acquisition (the "Acquisition Cost") and multiplying that by the
following percentage:

     .    For the first $1 million of Acquisition Cost         5 %
     .    For the next $1 million                              4 %
     .    For the next $1 million                              3 %
     .    For the next $1 million                              2 %
     .    For all consideration above $4 million               1 %

The referral fee shall be paid in the same manner and in the same ratio as
that of the transaction e.g. cash, common stock, restricted common stock, etc.

The Company and the referrer shall each bear their own operating expenses
including all travel expenses related to the execution of this Agreement.

If a dispute arises out of or relates to this Agreement or the breach thereof
and if the dispute cannot be settled through negotiation, the parties agree to
settle the dispute through binding arbitration administered by the American
Arbitration Association.


Agreed and accepted:

For the Referrer:                       For the Company:

/s/ Shay Kronfeld                       /s/ Gary Kimmons
_________________________________       __________________________________
Shay Kronfeld                           Gary F. Kimmons
                                        President & CEO
                                        GK Intelligent Systems, Inc.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Glenn L. Beane

v. Civil No. 08-cv-236-JL

Alan F. Beane

O R D E R

The court held a preliminary pretrial conference in this

matter on May 4, 2009, at which counsel for the defendant

proposed a potential extrajudicial resolution of Count 1 of the

amended complaint, which seeks a variety of injunctive relief

under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), in

particular 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3). Counsel for the plaintiff

shall respond to the proposal within a reasonable time, and

certainly no later than May 8, 2009. The parties shall report to

the court on the status of the proposed resolution within sixty

days, in order to allow the defendant time to seek the approval

of the Bankruptcy Court in the interim.

Upon the court’s receipt of the parties’ report on the

attempted resolution of Count 1, counsel should anticipate an

order requiring the submission of memoranda addressing the issues

of jurisdiction, ripeness, mootness, and standing as they relate

to Count 1 (if necessary) and Count 2.

Case 1:08-cv-00236-JL Document 53 Filed 05/04/09 Page 1 of 2
2

No discovery shall occur in this action until further order

of this court. 

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

Dated: May 4, 2009

cc: W. E. Whittington, Esq.

William S. Gannon, Esq.

Case 1:08-cv-00236-JL Document 53 Filed 05/04/09 Page 2 of 2
## NUMBER 13-24-00011-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF ERICA EDITH ALONZO AND JOSE MANUEL FIGUEROA AND IN THE INTEREST OF J.J.F., A CHILD

On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2 of Hidalgo County, Texas.



## MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Longoria, Silva, and Peña Memorandum Opinion by Justice Peña

This matter is before the Court on appellants ’ first and second motion for extension

of time to file notice of appeal

. We now d eny the motion s and the appeal for want of

jurisdiction.

On September 14, 2023

, the trial court entered a n order granting motion for

judgment nunc pro tunc and corrected judgment

. On October 13, 2023, appellant s filed a2 motion to reconsider the trial court’s judgment. On January 4 , 2024, a ppellant s filed a

notice of appeal.

On January 5, 2024 , the Clerk of this Court notified appellant s that it appeared that

the appeal was not timely perfected. Appellant s w ere advised that the appeal would be

dismissed if the defect was not corrected within ten days from the date of receipt of the

Court ’ s directive. On January 11, 2024, appellant s filed a motion for exte nsion of time to

file a notice of appeal.

Appellant s ’ motion for extension of time to file a notice of appeal was filed more
than fifteen days after the deadline for filing the notice of appeal and was untimely. T EX

.
R. A PP

. P. 26.3. We are to construe the rules of appellate procedure reasonably and

liberally so that the right to appeal is not lost by imposing requirements not absolutely

necessary to effectuate the purpose of a rule. See Verburgt v. Dorner

, 959 S.W.2d 615,

616



## – 17 (Tex. 1997). Nevertheless, we are prohibited from enlarging the scope of our

jurisdiction by enlarging the time for perfecting an appeal in a civil case in a manner not

provided for by rule. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 2; In re T.W.

, 89 S.W.3d 641, 642 (Tex. App.



## –

Amarillo 2002, no pet.).

Appellants ’ notice of appeal was untimely

, and appellants first and second motion s
for extension of time to file the notice of appeal w ere also untimely ; therefore, we lack

jurisdiction over the appeal. Accordingly, we d eny both m otion s and dismiss this cause

for want of jurisdiction

.3 L. ARON PEÑA JR. Justice

D elivered and filed on the 1st day of February , 202 4

.
<PAGE>

                                                          Item 6 (a), Exhibit 11



                  Western Pennsylvania Adventure Capital Fund
             Schedule of Computation of Earnings Per Common Share
                                For the Periods

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                              January 1, 2000   January 1, 1999
                                  through           through
                               March 31, 2000    March 31, 1999
                              ----------------  ----------------
                                (unaudited)       (unaudited)
<S>                           <C>               <C>

Net income (Loss)                $    6,524        $   (4,391)
                                 ==========        ==========

Weighted Average Number of
Common Shares Outstanding         3,890,347         2,210,434
                                 ==========        ==========

Earnings per Common Share        $     0.00        $     0.00
                                 ==========        ==========

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 06-mj-082-01-JM

Joan DiBartolo

O R D E R

Defendant appeared for a bail revocation hearing pursuant to

18 U.S.C. § 3148. She does not contest her violations. 

Unfortunately, she has been unable to stay off marijuana and

cocaine. Only after arrest on bail violations does she now say

she needs treatment. She is not now a good candidate for

treatment and is unlikely to comply with conditions. I find that

the defendant is unlikely to abide by any condition or

combination of conditions. Her bail is revoked.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the defendant be detained

pending trial. 

The defendant is committed to the custody of the Attorney

General or his designated representative for confinement in a

corrections facility separate, to the extent practicable, from

persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody

pending appeal. The defendant shall be afforded a reasonable

opportunity for private consultation with defense counsel. On

Case 1:06-cr-00192-PB Document 10 Filed 09/12/06 Page 1 of 2
2

order of a court of the United States or on request of an

attorney for the government, the person in charge of the

corrections facility shall deliver the defendant to the United

States Marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection

with a court proceeding. 

SO ORDERED.

___________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: September 12, 2006 

cc: Jonathan R. Saxe, Esq.

 Terry L. Ollila, Esq.

 U.S. Marshal

 U.S. Probation

Case 1:06-cr-00192-PB Document 10 Filed 09/12/06 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Elena Katz

v. Civil No. 08-cv-372-JD

Strafford County Department

of Corrections, et al.

O R D E R

Elena Katz filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on

September 12, 2008 (document no. 1). On September 23, 2008, Katz

filed a motion to amend her petition and a motion for an

emergency hearing (document nos. 3 & 4). The petition and the

motion for emergency hearing stemmed from her detention on bail

pursuant to a criminal charge of interference with custody, as

well as her detention pursuant to a no-bail hold imposed at the

direction of immigration authorities. 

On October 15, 2008, Katz contacted the office of the Clerk

of Court by telephone advising that she had been released from

incarceration. Katz further advised that she would file an

amendment or addendum to her habeas petition. The Court has

received no further communication from Katz.

Case 1:08-cv-00372-JD Document 9 Filed 02/04/09 Page 1 of 2
2

Petitioner is now directed to show cause, within fifteen

(15) days of the date of this Order, to demonstrate that her

habeas petition has not been rendered moot by her release from

custody. Failure to show cause as directed will result in my

recommendation that this matter be dismissed without prejudice.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: February 4, 2009

cc: Elena Katz, pro se

 

Case 1:08-cv-00372-JD Document 9 Filed 02/04/09 Page 2 of 2
| Company                                                        |   | Country of Formation                  |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------|
| Deli      Solar Holding Ltd.                                   |   | British      Virgin Islands           |
| Beijing      Deli Solar Technology Development Co., Ltd.       |   | People’s      Republic of China |
| Bazhou      Deli Solar Heating Energy Co., Ltd.                |   | People’s      Republic of China |
| Beijing      Ailiyang Solar Energy Technology Co., Ltd.        |   | People’s      Republic of China |
| Shenzhen      PengSangPu Solar Industrial Products Corporation |   | People’s      Republic of China |
| Tianjin      Huaneng Group Energy Equipment Co., Ltd.          |   | People’s      Republic of China |

----