alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>             6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>         Oct-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>            Nov-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>              Apr-30-1997
<CASH>                         626606
<SECURITIES>                   364969
<RECEIVABLES>                  754277
<ALLOWANCES>                        0
<INVENTORY>                     25570
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              1446963
<PP&E>                        1458086
<DEPRECIATION>                 508399
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                3070659
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>          913532
<BONDS>                             0
<COMMON>                        19415
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>               0
<PREFERRED>                         0
<OTHER-SE>                    1681576 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  3070659                   
<SALES>                       1160207
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              1181859 
<CGS>                          484539
<TOTAL-COSTS>                  484539
<OTHER-EXPENSES>               589120
<LOSS-PROVISION>                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              15105
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 86548
<INCOME-TAX>                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             86548
<DISCONTINUED>                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                     0
<CHANGES>                           0
<NET-INCOME>                    86548
<EPS-PRIMARY>                     .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                     .02
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CertificationPursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as Adopted Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qof Digital Angel Corporation (the “Company”) for the quarter ended June 30,2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5,2005 (the “Periodic Report”), I, James P. Santelli, Chief Financial Officer ofthe Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.               The Periodic Reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

 

2.               The informationcontained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Dated: August 4, 2005 | /s/ JAMES P. SANTELLI     |   |
|----------------------------|---------------------------|--------|
|                       | James P. Santelli         |
|                       | Chief Financial Officer   |
|                       | Digital Angel Corporation |

 

----
News United States Air Force
 Industry gets schooled on MDC2Published Feb. 25, 2019
                        
                        By Benjamin Newell
                        
                        
                        66th Air Base Group Public Affairs
                **LEXINGTON, Mass. (AFNS) --**
                Hanscom Air Force Base, Massachusetts, projected its quiet power during the Multi-Domain Command and Control (MDC2) Industry Day, Feb. 20, at the Minuteman Educational Center, according to speaker Eileen Vidrine, the Air Force's chief data officer.
Vidrine spoke to representatives from more than 100 companies representing major defense contractors, small businesses and non-traditional partners. Attendees heard descriptions of upcoming Air Force requirements to better plan their investment and research strategies. This would align them with the Air Force’s goal to make decisions based on an ecosystem of sensor data, rather than one single input, by 2030.
“We must push every day to add to our data toolbox,” said Vidrine. “Those tools include technology, people, and most of all, culture.”
She cited Hanscom AFB’s work building a common computing environment as an effort that will make data integration and multi-domain operations possible in the future. It is evidence of “quiet power” that takes the form of quickly acquiring systems that have strategic, long-term implications for operators, she said.
Sheryl Thorp, MDC2 integration office deputy director, also presented several upcoming opportunities for companies to contribute technological solutions to the problems faced by overwhelming data in combat. One such opportunity, called ‘Shadow Net,’ will create a specific data location where multiple sensors can input information, and Airmen and combatant commanders can read and process that information in order to make fully informed battlefield decisions. Shadow Net currently exists as a construct between seven locations throughout the United States and Thorp asked interested partners to work with the Air Force to make it better.
"We must plan for a future where that outdated technology can be exploited and make our best efforts to find solutions wherever they are,” Thorp said.
Thorp led MDC2 industry day in the Minuteman Regional High School auditorium. The school and the base have an educational cooperation agreement. Following presentations from **AFWERX**, the MDC2 office and the Air Force Chief Data Officer, industry representatives got a chance to speak one-on-one with Air Force acquisition specialists in individual classrooms. AFWERX hosts events designed to connect industry problem solvers with military requirements.AFwerX 



MDC2 



doolittle raiders 



Multidomain Command and Control Industry Day 



data 



data toolbox 



Learning Next 



hanscom air force base 



Shadow Net 



Air Force
News United States Air Force
 Around the Air Force: Mobility Guardian 2019 / B-1B Lancer / Air Force Be Ready AppPublished Sept. 13, 2019
                        
                        By Senior Airman Angelo Rosario
                        
                        
                        Air Force TV
                **FORT GEORGE G. MEADE, Md. (AFNS)   --**
                Today's look around the Air Force features the launch of exercise Mobility Guardian 2019, possible modifications to the B-1B Lancer, and the Air Force "Be Ready" mobile app for hurricane and natural disaster preparation and recovery. (Hosted by Senior Airman Angelo Rosario)

</iframe



For previous episodes, click **here** for the Air Force TV page.
Related links:
- U.S. Airmen, international partners look to build capabilities with Mobility Guardian
- Expanded carriage demonstration showcases possible B-1B capability
- Air Force Be Ready PageAFTV 



ATAF 



Around the Air Force 



Air Force 



AF 



USAF 



Airmen 



Air Force We Need 



AFWN 



Mobility Guardian 



Be Ready 



application 



B1-B Lancer 



AETC 



Air Mobility Command 



exercise 



No Bounds 



partnerships 



training 



Travis AFB 



412th Test Wing 



412TW 



AFGSC 



AFMC 



AFTC 



Air Force Global Strike Command 



Air Force Materiel Command 



Air Force Test Center 



B-1 Lancer 



Dyess Air Force Base 



Edwards AFB 



Edwards Air Force Base 



Ellsworth AFB 



For the Warfighter 



hypersonic 



ACC 



Air Combat Command 



Disaster Planning 



Disaster Readiness
The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District 1

of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 96-3486

___________

George L. Shepard; Karan L. *

Shepard, *

 *

Appellants, *

 * Appeal from the United

States

v. * District Court for the

 * District of Nebraska.

Harold W. Clarke; John Dahm; *

Barb Hoagland; Jack Falconer, * [ UNPUBLISHED]

 *

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: September 17,

1997

 Filed: September 22,

1997

___________

Before BOWMAN, MAGILL, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Nebraska prisoner George L. Shepard and his wife

Karan L. Shepard appeal the district court&s grant of

1

summary judgment to Nebraska prison officials in this 42

U.S.C. § 1983 action against Lincoln Correctional Center

correctional officers and supervisory officials. The
-2-

Shepards alleged that the correctional officers

retaliated 
-3-

against George for filing grievances by refusing to let

Karan use padded chairs during visits and by denying

visitation on occasions when Karan did not wear a

brassiere. The Shepards also alleged that the

supervisory officials condoned the correctional officers&

actions by denying George&s grievances. 

Following our de novo review, see Yowell v. Combs,

89 F.3d 542, 544 (8th Cir. 1996) (standard of review), we

find that summary judgment was proper. See 8th Cir. R.

47B.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district

court.

A true copy.

Attest:

 CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH

CIRCUIT.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Company's quarterly report on Form 10-Q and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1995
<CASH>                                          19,800
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  480,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                    25,500
<INVENTORY>                                    831,100
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,353,700
<PP&E>                                       1,601,900
<DEPRECIATION>                                 531,200
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,440,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          334,700
<BONDS>                                      1,640,600
<COMMON>                                       471,100
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     718,400
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,440,000
<SALES>                                      1,253,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,253,000
<CGS>                                          880,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  880,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              59,100
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                103,600
<INCOME-TAX>                                    47,400
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             56,200
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    56,200
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.74
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.74
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.1


 





FIRST AMENDMENT TO 


 


CONVERTIBLE PROMISSORY NOTE


 


 


 


This First
Amendment to the Convertible Promissory Note (the “Amendment”) is entered into this 3rd day
of October, 2014 (the “Effective Date”), by and between __________ (the “Holder”)
and RegeneRx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”).


 


WHEREAS, the Company
and the Holder have entered into a Convertible Notes and Warrant Purchase Agreement dated as of October 19, 2012 (the “Purchase
Agreement”); and


 


WHEREAS, pursuant to
such Purchase Agreement the Company issued to Holder a Convertible Promissory Note (the “Note”)containing
an October 19, 2014 maturity date (the “Maturity Date”); and


 


WHEREAS, the Company
and the Holder desire to amend the Note as provided in this Amendment to extend the Maturity Date.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in
consideration of the mutual promises and covenants contained herein, the parties agree to the following:


 


1.         Amendment to Section 1 (Maturity). Section 1 of the Note is hereby amended and replaced in its entirety as
follows:


 


Maturity. Unless converted or repaid
pursuant to Section 2 or Section 3, the entire unpaid principal sum of this Note, together with accrued and unpaid interest thereon,
will be payable upon the written demand of the Holder at any time after October 19, 2017 (the “Maturity Date”).
Subject to Section 3, interest shall accrue on this Note but shall not be due and payable until the written demand of the Holder
on or after the Maturity Date.  Notwithstanding the foregoing, the entire unpaid principal sum of this Note, together with
accrued and unpaid interest thereon, shall become immediately due and payable upon the commission of any act of bankruptcy by the
Company, the execution by the Company of a general assignment for the benefit of creditors, the filing by or against the Company
of a petition in bankruptcy or any petition for relief under the federal bankruptcy act or the continuation of such petition without
dismissal for a period of ninety (90) days or more, or the appointment of a receiver or trustee to take possession of the property
or assets of the Company.


 


2.         Except as herein modified or amended, no other term or provision of the Note is amended or modified in any respect. The
Note, and this Amendment, set forth the entire understanding between the parties with regard to the subject matter hereof and supersedes
any prior oral discussions or written communications and agreements. This Amendment cannot be modified or amended except in writing
signed by the Holder and an authorized officer of the Company.


 






    	 



    	 



    

 


In
Witness Whereof, the parties have executed this First Amendment to Convertible Promissory
Note on the day and year first written above


 


  


	 	COMPANY:
	 	 
	 	REGENERX BIOPHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
	 	 
	 	By: 	 
	 	 	J.J. Finkelstein
Chief Executive Officer
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	Address: 	15245 Shady Grove Road
	 	 	Suite 470
	 	 	Rockville, MD 20850
	 	 	 



  


 


 


 


AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED:


 


[_________]


 


 


___________________________


(signature)


 


Address:
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 173 (Wednesday, September 8, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 54497]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-22344]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 81

[EPA-R03-OAR-2010-0431; FRL-9197-5]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Maryland; Withdrawal of Direct Final Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Withdrawal of direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Due to an adverse comment, EPA is withdrawing the direct final 
rule to extend the attainment date from June 15, 2010 to June 15, 2011 
for the Baltimore nonattainment area, which is classified as moderate 
for the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard 
(NAAQS). In the direct final rule published on July 23, 2010, we stated 
that if we received any adverse comments by August 23, 2010, the rule 
would be withdrawn and would not take effect. EPA received an adverse 
comment within the comment period. EPA will address the comment 
received in a subsequent final action based upon the proposed action 
also published on July 23, 2010 (75 FR 43114). EPA will not institute a 
second comment period on this action.

DATES: Effective Date: The direct final rule is withdrawn as of 
September 8, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gregory Becoat, (215) 814-2036, or by 
e-mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#345651575b55401a534651535b464d745144551a535b42"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e08285838f8194ce879285878f9299a0859081ce878f96">[email protected]</span></a>.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks, 
Wilderness areas.

    Dated: August 18, 2010.
Shawn M. Garvin,
Regional Administrator, Region III.

0
Accordingly, the amendments to Sec.  81.321, published in the direct 
final rule on July 23, 2010 (75 FR 43069), are withdrawn as of 
September 8, 2010.

[FR Doc. 2010-22344 Filed 9-7-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WILLIAM RATCLIFF,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.
JONATHAN E. AKANNO, Individually and Official Capacity; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 18

- 17099

D.C. No. 1:16

- cv

- 00584

- LJO

- SAB

M EMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Lawrence J. O ’ Neill, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 15, 2019 **

Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner William Ratcliff appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 198 3 action alleging deliberate

indifference to his serious medical needs

. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291. We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung , 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

OCT 18 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 18

- 17099

2004)

. We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Ratcliff

failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were

deliberately indifferent to his medical needs

. See Toguchi
, 391 F.3d at 10 57

- 60
(holding deliberate indifference is a “ high legal standard ” requiring a defendant be
aware of and disregard an excessive risk to an inmate’s health ; medical

malpractice, negligence, or a difference of opinion concerning the course of

treatment does not amo unt to deliberate indifference ) ; id . at 1058 (explaining “a

prisoner must show that the chosen course of treatment was medically

unacceptable under the circumstances and was chosen in conscious disregard of an
excessive risk to [the prisoner’s] health” (ci tation and internal quotation marks

omitted)) ; see also Peralta v. Dillard , 744 F.3d 1076, 1087 (9th Cir. 2014)

(reliance on the decisions of qualified providers does not constitute deliberate

indifference)

. We reject as meritless Ratcliff’s contentio n s that the district court

improperly disregarded portions of his declaration and the declarations of other

prison inmates , made erroneous factual findings, and improperly viewed the

evidence in granting summary judgment

.
AFFIRMED.
#### Samuel Osgood *v.*Same Defendants.

*E. Sandford,*and *N B. Blunt,*for the plaintiff.

*J. McKeon,*and *Willis Hall,*for the defendants.

In this case, there remains little to be said. The plaintiff can found no claim upon the city charter; for his office was first' called into existence by the act of 1813. He was actually in office when the constitution of 1846 took effect, and it declares that he shall *“hold”*his office till the expiration of the term for which he was elected. (Art. 14, § 10.) By this we understand simply, that he was to have the office, as if there had been no change in our organic law. In other respects, his case is like Mr. Conner’s and we must render the same judgment in favor of the defendants.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. PRESTON LOVE.

July 10, 1985.

Petition for certification denied.
EXHIBIT
      31.2






CERTIFICATION






I,
      Arthur
      N. Robins, certify that:




1.
      I have
      reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Encompass Holdings, Inc.




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




3.
      Based
      on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
      included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
      condition, results of operations and cash flows of Encompass Holdings, Inc.
      as
      of, and for, the periods presented in this report;




4.
      I am
      responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures
      (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and have:




a.
      Designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
      information relating to Encompass Holdings, Inc., including its consolidated
      subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly
      during the period in which this report is being prepared;




b.
      Evaluated the effectiveness of Encompass Holdings, Inc.'s disclosure controls
      and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
      effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
      period covered by this report based on such evaluation.






Date:
      March 14, 2007




/s/
      Arthur N. Robins


Arthur
      N.
      Robins


Chief
      Executive Officer
----

|   | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition of the Company as of the dates presented and the consolidated result of operations of the Company for the periods presented. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | By:    | /s/ Alan Chen                                                         |   |
|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Name:  | Alan Chen                                                             |   |
|   | Title: | Principal Executive Officer, Principal Financial Officer and Director |   |
|   | Date:  | March 22, 2014                                                        |   |

----
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 Form 10-K of Cinedigm Digital Cinema Corp. (the “Company”) for the period ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the SEC (the “Report”), the undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below, 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 his 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 operation of the Company.





Date:June 11, 2011By:/s/ Christopher J. McGurkChristopher J. McGurkChief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors(Principal Executive Officer)