alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                    EXHIBIT 10.55

                            AMENDMENT TO LICENSE AGREEMENT



     This Amendment to the License Agreement (the "Amendment") dated this
ninth day of December, 1997, is made by and between Vista Medical
Technologies, Inc. ("Vista"), a Delaware Corporation, located at 5451 Avenida
Encinas, Suite A, Carlsbad, CA  92008 and Kaiser Aerospace & Electronics
Corporation ("Kaiser"), a California Corporation, located at 950 Tower Lane,
Foster City, CA  94404.

     Reference is made to the License Agreement dated July 19, 1995 by and
between Vista and Kaiser.  Terms used herein and not otherwise defined shall
have the meaning as set forth in the License Agreement.

     WHEREAS, Vista and Kaiser desire to amend the License Agreement in the
manner hereinafter provided;

     NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the agreements set forth herein,
Vista and Kaiser hereby amend the License Agreement as of the date set forth
above (the "Effective Date") as follows:

     1.   Section 1.1 is amended to delete the word "perpetual" from the
second line and from the seventh line.  The last sentence in Section 1.1 is
amended to read "For purposes of this Agreement, the "Field" shall be defined
as medical applications using Head Mounted Displays for surgical, clinical,
including clinical research, medical diagnostic and interventional purposes."

     2.   Section 1.3 is amended to read "The License granted in Section 1.1
shall become non-exclusive if and only if Vista has (i) failed to develop,
with the intent to market, a functional benchmark prototype of a Product
incorporating the Device within five (5) years following the effective date
of this Amendment or the termination date of the Manufacturing Supply
Agreement, as amended, whichever shall occur first, and (ii) has not, before
the expiration date of such period, entered into a development program for a
Product incorporating the Device with Kaiser or Kaiser-affiliated company
(iii) provided, however, that in no case will the License become
non-exclusive before August 31, 1998."


<PAGE>

     3.   Section 2.1 is amended to read "This Agreement shall continue in
effect for a period of five (5) years from the effective date unless and
until terminated as provided in this Section 2."

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be
executed by the respective duly authorized representatives as of the
effective date.

VISTA MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.


By: /s/ John Lyon
   -------------------------------
Its: President and CEO
     -----------------------------

KAISER AEROSPACE & ELECTRONICS CORPORATION


By: /s/ S. J. Hill
   -------------------------------
Its: President and CEO
    ------------------------------
SUBSIDIARIES OF TOTAL ENTERTAINMENT RESTAURANT CORP.
                              AS OF MARCH 13, 2000

      F & H Restaurant Corp.
      TENT Finance, Inc.
      Bailey's Sports Grille, Inc.
      Fox & Hound, Inc.
      Fox & Hound II, Inc.
      Alabama Fox & Hound, Inc.
      Fox & Hound of Colorado, Inc.
      F & H Restaurant of Georgia, Inc.
      Fox & Hound of Illinois, Inc.
      Fox & Hound of Indiana, Inc.
      F & H of Iowa, Inc.
      Fox & Hound of Kansas, Inc.
      Fox & Hound of Louisiana, Inc.
      Fox & Hound of Michigan, Inc.
      Fox & Hound of Missouri, Inc.
      Fox & Hound of Nebraska, Inc.
      Fox & Hound of North Carolina, Inc.
      Fox & Hound of Ohio, Inc.
      Pennsylvania Fox & Hound, Inc.
      Fox & Hound of Tennessee, Inc.
      Fox & Hound of Texas, Inc.
      N. Collins Beverage, Inc.
      505 Beverage, Inc.
      Jackson Beverage Corp.
      Raider Beverage Corp.
      Rocket Beverage Corp.
      Midway Entertainment, Ltd.
      N. Collins Entertainment, Ltd.
      505 Entertainment, Ltd.
      Fox & Hound of San Antonio, Ltd.
      Fox & Hound of Lubbock, Ltd.
      Fox & Hound of Houston, Ltd.
      Fox & Hound of Lewisville, Ltd.

Exhibit 21.1
#### Terry Lynn BELL, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D11-0002.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Feb. 15, 2011.

*655Terry Lynn Bell, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

DENIED. Fla. RApp. P. 9.141(c)(4)(B).

WOLF, HAWKES, and WETHERELL, JJ., concur.
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1710 

To modify the calculation of back pay for persons who were approved for 

promotion as members of the Navy and Marine Corps while interned 

as prisoners of war during World War II to take into account changes 

in the Consumer Price Index. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 27, 2007 

Ms. HOOLEY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To modify the calculation of back pay for persons who were 

approved for promotion as members of the Navy and 

Marine Corps while interned as prisoners of war during 

World War II to take into account changes in the Consumer Price Index. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
2 

•HR 1710 IH

1 SECTION 1. MODIFICATION OF AMOUNT OF BACK PAY FOR 

2 MEMBERS OF NAVY AND MARINE CORPS SE3 LECTED FOR PROMOTION WHILE INTERNED 

4 AS PRISONERS OF WAR DURING WORLD WAR 

5 II TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT CHANGES IN CON6 SUMER PRICE INDEX. 

7 (a) MODIFICATION.—Section 667(c) of the Floyd D. 

8 Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

9 Year 2001 (as enacted into law by Public Law 106–398; 

10 114 Stat. 1654A–170) is amended by adding at the end 

11 the following new paragraph: 

12 ‘‘(3) The amount determined for a person under 

13 paragraph (1) shall be increased to reflect increases in 

14 cost of living since the basic pay referred to in paragraph 

15 (1)(B) was paid to or for that person, calculated on the 

16 basis of the Consumer Price Index (all items—United 

17 States city average) published monthly by the Bureau of 

18 Labor Statistics.’’. 

19 (b) RECALCULATION OF PREVIOUS PAYMENTS.—In 

20 the case of any payment of back pay made to or for a 

21 person under section 667 of the Floyd D. Spence National 

22 Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 before the 

23 date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the 

24 Navy shall— 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
3 

•HR 1710 IH

1 (1) recalculate the amount of back pay to which 

2 the person is entitled by reason of the amendment 

3 made by subsection (a); and 

4 (2) if the amount of back pay, as so recal5 culated, exceeds the amount of back pay so paid, pay 

6 the person, or the surviving spouse of the person, an 

7 amount equal to the excess. 

Æ 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                            6688
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          269354
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                  1480
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                          0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                             121
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                               125
<LOANS>                                         364345
<ALLOWANCE>                                       1796
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  665446
<DEPOSITS>                                      353196
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             264274
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       46978
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  665446
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  27445
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                 2007
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 29462
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               15811
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               15811
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            13651
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      825
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                (12)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                   9903
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   4309
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                        4309
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      2722
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.97
<LOANS-NON>                                        618
<LOANS-PAST>                                      1413
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   863
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                   3944
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                  1000
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       39
<RECOVERIES>                                        10
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                 1796
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                              1796
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM ADVANCED
COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, INC'S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           2,457
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   55,198
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,139
<INVENTORY>                                        583
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                58,343
<PP&E>                                          17,259
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,215
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 119,735
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           36,907
<BONDS>                                         36,564
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           115
<OTHER-SE>                                      44,768
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   119,735
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               107,752
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   98,681
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,918
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,235
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,861
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,374
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,374
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .61
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .60
        

</TABLE>
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Jordan D. ZANTIZ.

No. 2011-KO-0481.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 16, 2011.

*1190In re Zantiz, Jordan D.; — Defendant; Applying for Reconsideration of this Court’s action dated September 23, 2011; Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court, Div. F, No. 436391; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KW 0999.

Denied.
---



##### 



2. (a) To remove the maximum number of common shares that the Corporation is authorized to issue. (b) To provide that, after giving affect to the foregoinq, the
Corporation is authorized to issue an unlimited number of common shares. Form 3
Business
Corporations
Act Fomule 3
Lai sur les
societes par
actions 6. The amendment has been duly authorized as required by Sections 168 and 170 (as applicable) of
the Business
Corponstions Act
La modification a ete dument autorisee conformement am articles 168 et 170 (selon le cas) de /a Loi
sur fes
societes par actions. 7. The resolution authorizing the amendment was approved by the shareholders/directors (as
applicable) of the
corporation on
Les acttonnaires ou les adnministrateurs (seton to cas) de is societe ont approuve la resolution
autorisant la modification to 2007 March 30
(Year, Month, Day)
(annee,mois, jour) These articles are signed in duplicate.
Les presents staiuts sort signs en double exemplaire. ENVOY COMMUNICATIONS GROUP INC.
___ (Name of Corporation)(If the name is to be changed by these articles set out current name)
(Denomitiatfon sociale de la socigete) (Si lon dsmands un changement de nom, indiquer ci-dessus
la agnomination socisfe actuelt By/
Par
S ec r e t a r y
___ (Signature) (Desoiption of Office)

(Signature) {Fonctiort}
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999<F1>
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Financial statements for the year ended June 30, 1999 have not been prepared in
as much as the reporting entities have not commenced operations as of that
date.
</FN>


</TABLE>
855 A.2d 763

#### COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant, v. Rabin Berry LAWSON, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Submitted Jan. 13, 2004.

Decided Aug. 18, 2004.

Donald R. Totaro, Janna Rae Steinruck, for Com. of Pa.

Joseph A. Kalasnik, Hanover, for Rabin Berry Lawson.

Before CAPPY, C.J., and CASTILLE, NIGRO, NEWMAN, SAYLOR, BAER, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 18th day of August, 2004, the order of the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas is reversed insofar as it declared the Registration of Sexual Offenders Act unconstitutional, and the case is remanded for further proceedings. *See Commonwealth v. Williams,*574 Pa. 487, 832 A.2d 962 (2003); *Commonwealth v. Maldonado,*576 Pa. 101, 838 A.2d 710 (2003).

Justice EAKIN did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2


               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 accompanying Quarterly Report of Targeted Genetics
Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2005 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Todd E. Simpson, Vice President, Finance and Administration, Chief
Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
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, as amended; and

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

Date: April 27, 2005            /s/ Todd E. Simpson
--------------------            ------------------------------------------------
                                Todd E. Simpson
                                Vice President, Finance and Administration,
                                Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1576 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make permanent the special 

rule for contributions of qualified conservation contributions. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 19, 2007 

Mr. THOMPSON of California (for himself, Mr. CAMP of Michigan, Mr. KIND, 

Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr. CANTOR, Mr. BLUMENAUER, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, Mr. CHANDLER, Mr. SAXTON, Mr. GERLACH, Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut, Mr. FORTENBERRY, Mrs. TAUSCHER, Mr. ISSA, Mr. BARTLETT

of Maryland, Mr. RADANOVICH, Mr. GILCHREST, Mr. KUHL of New 

York, Mr. PATRICK J. MURPHY of Pennsylvania, Mr. ISRAEL, Mr. 

CARDOZA, Mr. EHLERS, Mr. BISHOP of New York, and Mr. GARRETT of 

New Jersey) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make 

permanent the special rule for contributions of qualified 

conservation contributions. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SPECIAL RULE FOR CONTRIBUTIONS OF QUALI4 FIED CONSERVATION CONTRIBUTIONS MADE 

5 PERMANENT. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.— 


ccoleman on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1576 IH

1 (1) INDIVIDUALS.—Subparagraph (E) of sec2 tion 170(b)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 

3 (relating to contributions of qualified conservation 

4 contributions) is amended by striking clause (vi). 

5 (2) CORPORATIONS.—Subparagraph (B) of sec6 tion 170(b)(2) of such Code (relating to qualified 

7 conservation contributions) is amended by striking 

8 clause (iii). 

9 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

10 this section shall apply to contributions made in taxable 

11 years beginning after the date of the enactment of this 

12 Act. 

Æ 


ccoleman on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Markell FLETCHER.

No. 2010-KP-1056.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 17, 2010.

In re Fletcher, Markell; —Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. B, No. 372-250; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-K-0153.

Denied.
627 A.2d 1132

#### NEW JERSEY STATE LEAGUE OF MUNICIPALITIES, ETC., ET AL. v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY.

March 11, 1993.

ORDER

The parties having stipulated to a dismissal of this matter, it is ORDERED that the petition for certification is dismissed.
Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter

Citation Limited Pursuant to 1st Cir. Loc. R. 32.3

United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 05-1788

BASHKIM ALIMADHI,

Petitioner,

v.

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF

THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS

Before

 Boudin, Chief Judge,

Torruella and Lipez, Circuit Judges.

Emmanuel N. Papanickolas on brief for petitioner.

William J. Schneider, Assistant United States Attorney, and

Paula D. Silsby, United States Attorney, on brief for respondent.

April 14, 2006
-2-

Per Curiam. Bashkim Alimadhi is an Albanian national who

entered the United States on a fraudulent passport and visa in

March 2001. In removal proceedings begun a year later, Alimadhi

conceded removability but sought asylum and withholding of removal

because of persecution based on his political opinions. 8 U.S.C.

§ 1101(a)(42) (2000); 8 C.F.R. § 208.13 (2006). The immigration

judge ("IJ") held a hearing and denied relief in an order summarily

affirmed by the Board of Immigration Appeals. 

Alimadhi was born in 1968 in Albania during the rule of

Enver Hoxha, a Communist dictator. The regime was overthrown in

1991 and the Democratic Party of Albania ruled the country until

1997. Then, after another period of upheaval, the Socialist Party

of Albania rose to power and has ruled ever since. Alimadhi is

affiliated with an opposition party, the National Front Party

("PBK"), which has a few legislative seats.

To support his claim of past and future persecution,

Alimadhi described four incidents of alleged persecution at the

hearing in front of the IJ. Two of the incidents were not

mentioned when Alimadhi was initially interviewed by an asylum

officer. A third incident--an alleged beating of Alimadhi by

police in July 1997--occurred during a period when Alimadhi had

told the asylum officer he was in Greece. Two of the alleged

incidents were not mentioned in Alimadhi's written (and sworn)

asylum application.
-3-

The IJ found Alimadhi not to be credible as to his

description of alleged past persecution--a reasonable conclusion to

which we defer. Bojorques-Villanueva v. INS, 194 F.3d 14, 16 (1st

Cir. 1999). Past incidents aside, Alimadhi's main basis for his

alleged fear of future persecution is his claim that the present

ruling Socialist Party of Albania will persecute him because he

belongs to an opposition party. The inference is at odds with

State Department reports as to political conditions in Albania

today; other of Alimadhi's family members, who belong to his own

party, reside peacefully in Albania.

The IJ's conclusion that Alimadhi has not established a

reasonable fear of future persecution is so clearly supported by

substantial evidence as to make detailed discussion unnecessary.

With that conclusion, Alimadhi's further claim for withholding of

removal also fails. Aguilar-Solis v. INS, 168 F.3d 565, 569 n. 3

(1st Cir. 1999). So, too, does Alimadhi's additional claim for

relief under the Convention Against Torture. 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c).

The petition for review is denied.