alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
FOURTH AMENDMENT TO 8% CONVERTIBLE DEBENTURE:

      

      

      This Fourth Amendment to the 8% Convertible Debenture, dated September 27, 2017, as amended by the First Amendment to the 8% Convertible Debenture, dated September 9, 2018,
        Second Amendment dated November 6, 2019, and  Third Amendment dated November 15, 2020,  made by Qrons Inc. for the benefit of CubeSquare LLC in the amount of $15,000 (the “Debenture”) hereby amends the Debenture as follows:

      

      

      The maturity date of the Debenture is hereby amended to September 27, 2022.

      

      

      Except as amended hereby all of the terms and conditions of the Debenture shall remain in full force and effect.

      

      

      

      

      Dated this 7th day of October 2021

      

      

      Qrons Inc.

      

      

      By: /s/Jonah Meer

      Chief Executive Officer

      

      

      ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED:

       

      

      CubeSquare LLC

      

      

      By: /s/Jonah Meer

      Managing Member
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                         9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         1,379,254
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1,242,764
<ALLOWANCES>                                           0
<INVENTORY>                                    1,123,161
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               4,037,143
<PP&E>                                         1,238,327
<DEPRECIATION>                                   377,463
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 5,294,222
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,488,538
<BONDS>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                       12,658
<COMMON>                                          56,794
<OTHER-SE>                                     1,920,981
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   5,294,222
<SALES>                                        8,349,138
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               8,349,138
<CGS>                                          6,237,573
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  6,237,573
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               1,825,896
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               201,475
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  135,960
<INCOME-TAX>                                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              135,960
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                     135,960
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        .02
        

</TABLE>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal Service.TM

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

Postal Service gives notice of filing of a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3).

# DATES:

October 13, 2010.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that on October 4, 2010, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail Contract 28 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *http://www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2011-2, CP2010-3.                

Neva R. Watson,

Attorney, Legislative.

[FR Doc. 2010-25607 Filed 10-12-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF JUNE 30, 1997 AND THE CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE SIX MONTH PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30,
1997.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          24,851
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                27,820
<PP&E>                                           6,034
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (3,368)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  36,373
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,383
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        70,861
<OTHER-SE>                                    (51,573)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    36,373
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,631
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,126
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5,125)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (5,125)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,125)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.77)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.77)
        

</TABLE>
Raymond De Leon, et /s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 21, 2015

No. 04-14-00751-CV

Josefina Alexander GONZALEZ, et al.,

Appellants

v.

Raymond DE LEON, et al.,

Appellees

From the 406th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014-CVQ-001098-D4

Honorable Oscar J. Hale, Jr., Judge Presiding

ORDER

Appellants have filed a motion asking this court to allow current appellate counsel to 

withdraw and to allow new appellate counsel to substitute in as counsel for appellants. We 

GRANT appellants’ motion. We ORDER that prior appellate counsel – Robinson C. Ramsey, 

Joyce W. Moore, and Paula C. Boston – be removed as counsel of record and new appellate 

counsel – Barry Snell – be substituted in as counsel for appellants. We remind appellants’ new 

counsel that appellants’ motion for rehearing was originally due September 8, 2015, and this 

court has already granted a thirty-day extension of time to file the motion. Appellants’ motion 

for rehearing is due October 10, 2015.

 We order the clerk of this court to serve a copy of this order on ALL counsel, including 

counsel that is withdrawing.

_________________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 21st day of September, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
No. 87-1245.

#### Texas Monthly, Inc. *v.*Bullock, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas, et al.

Appeal from Ct. App. Tex., 3d Dist. Motions of Magazine Publishers of America, Inc., and American Booksellers Association, Inc., for leave to file briefs as *amici curiae*granted. Probable jurisdiction noted.
Exhibit 4.1

	
	CLASS A SHARE CERTIFICATE
HONG KONG SHARE REGISTER
DATE OF ISSUE CERTIFICATE NUMBER RUN/TFR. NO. REGISTER NUMBER OF SHARE(S)
CODE:
NUMBER OF SHARE(S):
GIVEN UNDER THE SECURITIES SEAL OF THE COMPANY ON THE DATE OF ISSUE STATED ABOVE.
DIRECTOR
NO TRANSFER OF THE WHOLE OR ANY PORTION OF THE ABOVE SHARE(S) CAN BE REGISTERED UNLESS ACCOMPANIED BY THIS SHARE CERTIFICATE.
HONG KONG SHARE REGISTRAR: COMPUTERSHARE HONG KONG INVESTOR SERVICES LIMITED, SHOPS 1712-1716, 17TH FLOOR, HOPEWELL CENTRE, 183 QUEEN’S ROAD EAST, WANCHAI, HONG KONG.
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE UNDERMENTIONED PERSON(S) IS/ARE THE REGISTERED HOLDER(S) OF FULLY PAID CLASS A
ORDINARY SHARE(S) OF NOMINAL VALUE US$0.00025 PER SHARE IN THE SHARE CAPITAL OF WEIBO CORPORATION (THE
 “COMPANY”) AS DETAILED BELOW SUBJECT TO THE MEMORANDUM AND ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION OF THE COMPANY.
WEIBO CORPORATION
(a company controlled through weighted voting rights and incorporated in the Cayman Islands with limited liability)
V1.1 F
#### Ledor J. LEGENE, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 5D11-1089.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

May 13, 2011.

Robert Wesley, Public Defender, and Robert C. Power, Assistant Public Defender, Orlando, for Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Wesley Heidt, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Respondent.

GRIFFIN, J.

Ledor J. Legene (“Defendant”] seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the trial court to set and hear Defendant’s motion to dismiss criminal charges based on alleged immunity from prosecution under sections 776.032, 776.012 and 776.013(3), Florida Statutes, the justifiable use of force and “stand your ground” statutes.

Defendant was charged with one count of aggravated battery with a deadly weapon and one count of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, claiming immunity from criminal prosecution under sections 776.032, 776.012 and 776.013(3), Florida Statutes. In his motion, Defendant set forth a factual scenario, which basically involved finding his daughter’s boyfriend inside Defendant’s locked residence. Upon discovery by Defendant, the boyfriend allegedly pushed him to the floor. Defendant then struck the boyfriend with a stick and later threatened the boyfriend outside the house.

The State filed a motion to strike the motion to dismiss, asserting that Defendant failed to provide an adequate factual basis to support the motion. The trial court held a hearing on the State’s motion to strike and granted the motion. Defendant thereafter filed his petition for writ of mandamus to obtain review of that order and to obtain an order requiring an evi-dentiary hearing. *See Martinez v. State,*44 So.3d 1219 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). In response, the State, citing to *Dennis v. State,*51 So.3d 456 (Fla.2010), concedes that Defendant is entitled to an evidentia-ry hearing on its motion to dismiss. In light of this development, we grant Defendant’s petition for writ of mandamus to compel the trial court to conduct an evi-dentiary hearing on Defendant’s motion to dismiss, but because we are confident the trial court will conduct the required hearing, we withhold issuance of a formal writ for a period of thirty days.

Petition GRANTED, Issuance of writ WITHHELD.

LAWSON and EVANDER, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-Q
QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT
OF 1934.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                               0<F1>
<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-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 HAVE NOT BEEN
    PREPARED IN AS MUCH AS THE REPORTING ENTITIES HAVE NOT COMMENCED OPERATIONS
    AS OF THAT DATE.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
584 A.2d 207

#### SANDRA GRIMES v. DR. LEONARD M. HIRSCH.

May 7, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
649 A.2d 851

#### IN THE MATTER OF ERNEST DE STEFANO, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.

November 17, 1994.

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed a report with the Court, recommending that ERNEST DE STEFANO of HAM-MONTON, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1980, be publicly reprimanded for violating *RPC*1.1(a) (gross neglect) and *RPC*1.3 (failure to act with reasonable diligence), and good cause appearing;

*171It is ORDERED that the report and recommendation of the Disciplinary Review Board are adopted and ERNEST DE STE-FANO is hereby publicly reprimanded; and it is further

ORDERED that the entire record of this matter be made a permanent part of respondent’s file as an attorney at law of this State; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent reimburse the Office of Attorney Ethics and the Disciplinary Review Board for appropriate administrative costs incurred in the prosecution of this matter.

WITNESS, the Honorable Robert L. Clifford, Presiding Justice, at Trenton, this 15th day of November, 1994.
585 A.2d 404

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JEROME DELOACH.

October 30, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
No. 87-6231.

#### Cassell *v.*Mount Joy Mennonite Church et al.

Sup. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. 22-0662

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

LLOYD MORTIER BARRUS,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including November 6, 2023, within which to prepare, 

file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 28 2023

09/28/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0662
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         339,645
<SECURITIES>                                   222,522
<RECEIVABLES>                                  240,637
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,452
<INVENTORY>                                     96,939
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               971,655
<PP&E>                                         145,242
<DEPRECIATION>                                  55,696
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,132,070
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          298,985
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           188
<OTHER-SE>                                     832,897
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,132,070
<SALES>                                        604,433
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               604,433
<CGS>                                          211,064
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  211,064
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               587,921
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (11,578)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (182,974)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    29,104
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (212,078)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (212,078)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.13)
        

</TABLE>
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

931 

TP 14-00070 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, CARNI, LINDLEY, AND WHALEN, JJ. 

 

IN THE MATTER OF KEVIN MARKMAN, PETITIONER, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

GLADYS CARRION, COMMISSIONER, NEW YORK STATE 

OFFICE OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES AND 

KELLY A. REED, COMMISSIONER, MONROE COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, RESPONDENTS. 

 

THE ABBATOY LAW FIRM, PLLC, ROCHESTER (DAVID M. ABBATOY, JR., OF

COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER. 

MERIDETH H. SMITH, COUNTY ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (PETER A. ESSLEY OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT KELLY A. REED, COMMISSIONER, MONROE COUNTY

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES. 

 

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (JULIE M. SHERIDAN OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT GLADYS CARRION, COMMISSIONER, NEW YORK STATE

OFFICE OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES. 

 

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to the

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial

Department by order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County [John J. Ark,

J.], entered January 9, 2014) to review a determination of the New

York State Office of Children and Family Services. The determination

denied petitioner’s application to amend the indicated report of

maltreatment to an unfounded report. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the determination is unanimously

confirmed without costs and the petition is dismissed. 

Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to

CPLR article 78 seeking to annul the determination, made after a fair

hearing, denying in part his request to amend an indicated report of

maltreatment with respect to two of his children to an unfounded

report, and to seal it (see Social Services Law § 422 [8] [a] [v]; [c]

[ii]). We conclude that the determination is supported by substantial

evidence and therefore decline to disturb it (see Matter of Arbogast v

New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs., Special Hearing Bur.,

119 AD3d 1454, 1454-1455; Matter of Parker v Carrion, 90 AD3d 512,

512). Where, as here, hearsay evidence is “sufficiently relevant and

probative,” it may constitute substantial evidence (People ex rel.

Vega v Smith, 66 NY2d 130, 139; see Matter of Bullock v State of N.Y.

Dept. of Social Servs., 248 AD2d 380, 382). The Administrative Law
-2- 931 

TP 14-00070 

Judge credited the children’s accounts of the incidents over

petitioner’s denials thereof, and we perceive no basis to disturb

those credibility determinations (see generally Matter of Berenhaus v

Ward, 70 NY2d 436, 443; Matter of Scaccia v Martinez, 9 AD3d 882,

883).

Entered: September 26, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
#### Eric DUQUE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D10-3227.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 29, 2010.

Eric Duque, in proper person.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before WELLS, CORTIÑAS, and LAGOA JJ.

WELLS, Judge.

Eric Duque appeals from the denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion in which he raised six claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. We agree with the court below that the first three claims raised therein regarding defense counsel’s failure to secure a psychiatric evaluation prior to Duque’s acceptance of a plea are without merit. We also agree that his fifth claim regarding whether he was adequately advised of all of the consequences of a habitual offender sentence was properly denied on the merits. However, we reverse the trial court’s summary denial of his fourth and sixth claims, which we, like Duque, treat as a single claim1 regarding counsel’s failure to advise him of the maximum sentence which he faced pri- or to rejecting an initial plea offer. *See Revell v. State,*989 So.2d 751, 752 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (finding that trial counsel’s failure to advise the defendant of the possibility and consequences of being sentenced as a habitual felony offender while the State’s plea offer was still open constituted ineffective assistance of counsel).

On appeal from a summary denial, this court must reverse unless the post-conviction record, *see*Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(A), shows conclusively that the appellant is entitled to no relief. *See*Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(D). Because the record now before us fails to make the required showing, we reverse the order and remand for either an evidentiary hearing or other appropriate relief. If the trial court again enters an order summarily denying the post-conviction motion, the court *589shall attach record excerpts conclusively showing that the appellant is not entitled to any relief.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

1

. Duque treats these claims as a single claim in his initial brief filed herein acknowledging that, while inartful, these claims taken together raise an issue regarding counsel’s failure to advise the defendant of the statutory maximum sentence that he was facing.