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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the 
financial statements and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                      1
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             NOV-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                  NOV-30-1997
<CASH>                            614,617
<SECURITIES>                    1,088,093
<RECEIVABLES>                   1,268,639
<ALLOWANCES>                       12,000
<INVENTORY>                     3,288,417
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                9,454,542
<PP&E>                            443,345
<DEPRECIATION>                    187,128
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                 10,975,338
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             127,478
<BONDS>                         3,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                           834
<COMMON>                              135
<OTHER-SE>                      7,796,891
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>   10,975,338
<SALES>                        11,682,301
<TOTAL-REVENUES>               11,682,301
<CGS>                           5,799,287
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   5,799,287
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                264,586
<INCOME-PRETAX>                (1,404,238)
<INCOME-TAX>                     (370,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>            (1,034,238)
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                   (1,034,238)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                        (.77)
<EPS-DILUTED>                        (.77)
        


</TABLE>
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. ROBERTO DIAZ.

June 13, 1989.

Petition for certification denied.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. LAWRENCE GAINES.

May 2, 1989.

Cross-petition for certification denied.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Earnest Jackson,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

MDL Case No. 2:15-md-02641-DGC

Civil Action No. CV-17-04253-PHX-DGC

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: Marc J Bern & Partners LLP

(Name of plaintiff’s attorney or unrepresented plaintiff)

I have received your request to waive service of a summons in this action along with a copy of the complaint, two 

copies of this waiver form, and a prepaid means of returning one signed copy of the form to you.

I, or the entity I represent, agree to save the expense of serving a summons and complaint in this case.

I understand that I, or the entity I represent, will keep all defenses or objections to the lawsuit, the court’s 

jurisdiction, and the venue of the action, but that I waive any objections to the absence of a summons or of service.

I also understand that I, or the entity I represent, must file and serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 within 

60 days from 11/28/2017, the date when this request was sent (or 90 days if it was sent outside the United States). If I fail 

to do so, a default judgment will be entered against me or the entity I represent.

Date: December 8, 2017 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Signature of the attorney or unrepresented party

C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral

Vascular, Inc.

Printed name of parties waiving service of 

summons

Richard B. North, Jr. (Ga. Bar No. 545599)

Printed Name

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP

201 17th St., NW, Suite 1700, Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA 30363

Address

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com

E-mail Address

(404) 322-6155

Telephone number

Duty to Avoid Unnecessary Expenses of Serving a Summons

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires certain defendants to cooperate in saving unnecessary expenses of serving a 

summons and complaint. A defendant who is located in the United States and who fails to return a signed waiver of service requested by a plaintiff 

located in the United States will be required to pay the expenses of service, unless the defendant shows good cause for the failure. 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9287 Filed 12/12/17 Page 1 of 2
2

“Good cause” does not include a belief that the lawsuit is groundless, or that it has been brought in an improper venue, or that the court has 

no jurisdiction over this matter or over the defendant or the defendant’s property. 

If the waiver is signed and returned, you can still make these and all other defenses and objections, but you cannot object to the absence of 

a summons or of service. 

If you waive service, then you must, within the time specified on the waiver form, serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 on the 

plaintiff and file a copy with the court. By signing and returning the waiver form, you are allowed more time to respond than if a summons had been 

served.

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9287 Filed 12/12/17 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 23.2



            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


We  consent  to  the  incorporation  by  reference  in  Enova  Systems,  Inc.'s,
Registration  Statements on Form S-8 (No.  333-95701) our report on the audit of
Enova Systems, Inc.'s, statements of operations,  stockholders' equity, and cash
flows for the year ended December 31, 2002. Our report,  which is dated February
24, 2003, appears in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Enova Systems,  Inc., for
the year ended December 31, 2004.


                                                     /s/ MOSS ADAMS LLP

Santa Rosa, California
March 30, 2005



                                       43
Exhibit 10.30


 


 





AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO LOAN AGREEMENT


 


This Amendment No. 3 to Loan
Agreement (the “Amendment”) is entered into effective the 18th day of February 2021, by and between Novus Capital Group, LLC
(the “Holder”), and Vivasphere, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”).


 


RECITALS


 


WHEREAS, the Company is the
responsible party under that certain Loan and Security Agreement by and between Quantumsphere, Inc. and the Holder dated June 19, 2014
(and assigned to the Company under that certain Agreement Regarding Assets dated December 3, 2018) in the original principal amount of
$334,775, which originally did not carry interest and matured on December 3, 2019 (the “Note”);


 


WHEREAS, on or about February
6, 2020, the Company and Holding agreed to extend the maturity date under the Note until July 1, 2020 and add a seven percent (7%) simple
interest rate to the Note starting January 1, 2020, which would accrue and be due on the new maturity date (“Amendment No. 1”);


 


WHEREAS, on or about September
23, 2020, the Company and Holding agreed to extend the maturity date under the Note until January 2, 2021 and increase the interest rate
to ten percent (10%) simple interest rate to the Note starting July 1, 2020, which would accrue and be due on the new maturity date (“Amendment
No. 2”);


 


WHEREAS, no payment has been
made under the Note, and the Holder and the Company desire to modify the terms of the Note to extend the maturity date as set forth herein.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration
of the mutual promises herein contained, the parties hereto hereby agree as follows:


 


1.       The
principal and any unpaid accrued interest on the Note shall be due and payable on or before 5:00 p.m., Pacific Standard Time, on July
2, 2021 (the “New Maturity Date”).


 


2.        Interest shall accrue
at the rate of ten percent (10%) per annum, simple interest, from January 2, 2021 until all unpaid principal and interest is paid in
full.


 


3.       Other
than as set forth herein, the terms and conditions of the Note shall remain in full force and effect.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties
hereto have caused this Amendment to be duly executed as of the date first set forth above.


 


	“Company”	“Holder”
	 	 
	Vivasphere, Inc.,	Novus Capital, LLC
	a Nevada corporation	 
	 	 
	 	 
	/s/ Matt Nicosia	/s/ Robert Tobin
	By:Matt Nicosia	By:Robert Tobin
	Its:Chief Executive Officer	Its:Chief Investment Officer
#### ROBERT JONES v. POWER & COMMUNICATIONS SUPPLY COMPANY, ETC., ET AL., AND CYKLOP STRAPPING CORP.

July 11, 1989.

Petition for certification denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary information extracted from the Registrant Company
Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet (Unaudited) for September 30, 1999 and
Condensed Consolidated Statement of Income (Unaudited) for the Six Months ended
September 30, 1999 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           5,126,000
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,290,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                       263,000<F1>
<INVENTORY>                                      5,786,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                24,784,000
<PP&E>                                           1,717,000<F1>
<DEPRECIATION>                                     377,000<F1>
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  33,980,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,982,000
<BONDS>                                                  0<F1>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0<F1>
<PREFERRED>                                              0<F1>
<COMMON>                                            42,000
<OTHER-SE>                                      14,372,000<F1>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    33,980,000
<SALES>                                         63,450,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                63,450,000
<CGS>                                           54,592,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   60,980,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 200,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,226,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                       876,000<F1>
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,390,000<F1>
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0<F1>
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0<F1>
<CHANGES>                                                0<F1>
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,390,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                         0.35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0.35

<FN>
F1 = indication of uncertainty in figures
</FN>

</TABLE>
2014 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

3-13-2014

In Re: Craig Alford

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket 14-1296

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2014

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2014 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"In Re: Craig Alford" (2014). 2014 Decisions. Paper 286.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2014/286
1

DLD-186 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 14-1296

___________

IN RE: CRAIG ALFORD,

Petitioner

____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the

United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(Related to Civ. No. 3-13-cv-02800)

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.

February 27, 2014

Before: SMITH, HARDIMAN and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: March 14, 2014 )

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM

Pro se petitioner Craig Alford has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus requesting that 

we compel the District Court to rule on a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and related motions 

that Alford has filed. For the reasons set forth below, we will deny Alford’s petition. 

Alford filed his § 2254 petition in the District Court in November 2013. He has since 

filed a flurry of other motions, including motions to appoint counsel, disqualify the District 

Judge, change venue, and appoint class counsel. Each of these filings remains pending. On 

January 28, 2014, Alford filed the instant mandamus petition. 
2

Mandamus is a drastic remedy that is granted in only extraordinary cases. In re Diet 

Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 2005). To demonstrate that mandamus is 

appropriate, a petitioner must establish that he or she has “no other adequate means” to obtain 

the relief requested, and that he or she has a “clear and indisputable” right to issuance of the 

writ. Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996).

Although mandamus may be warranted when a district court’s “undue delay is 

tantamount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction,” id., this case does not present such a situation. 

At the time Alford filed his mandamus petition, his § 2254 petition and related motions had 

been pending (at most) for just three months, which “does not yet rise to the level of a denial of 

due process.” Id. (stating that four months of inaction is insufficient to warrant mandamus). 

We are confident that the District Court will rule on Alford’s filings in due course. 

Accordingly, we will deny Alford’s mandamus petition.
Exhibit 99.10(c)
  

   
  

  
   Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
  

  
   The Board of Directors
Protective Life Insurance Company:
  

  
   We consent to the use of our report dated April 28, 2021, with respect to the financial statements of the subaccounts, which comprise Protective Variable Annuity Separate Account as of December 31, 2020, and for each of the years or periods in the two-year period then ended, incorporated by reference in the Statement of Additional Information, which is part of this registration statement on Form N-4 and to the reference to our firm under the heading “Experts” in the Statement of Additional Information.
  

  
     
  

  
   /s/ KPMG LLP
  

  
   Birmingham, Alabama 
April 28, 2021
  












  
  1

  



 
  

   
  

  
   Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
  

  
   The Board of Directors
Protective Life Insurance Company:
  

  
   We consent to the use of our report dated March 30, 2021, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Protective Life Insurance Company and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2020 and 2019, and for the years then ended, incorporated by reference in the Statement of Additional Information, which is part of this registration statement on Form N-4 and to the reference to our firm under the heading “Experts” in the Statement of Additional Information.  Our report dated March 30, 2021 refers to a change in accounting principle due to the adoption of Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) Topic 326, Financial Instruments – Credit Losses.
  

  
     
  

  
   /s/ KPMG LLP
  

  
   Birmingham, Alabama 
April 28, 2021
  

  
  2
Exhibit 10.11.5

<TABLE>

               SUMMARY OF APPROVED CHANGES TO THE
               BLUE SHIELD CONTROLLED AFFILIATE LICENSE AGREEMENT

<CAPTION>

      ACTION         EFFECTIVE DATE                              EXPLANATION
  <C>                <C>                <C>
  Replace the        December 31, 1999  Amendments to Paragraph 7(h)(3) -. Amend termination fee
  entire                                language to allow for an equivalent threshold under a successor
  document                              formula by the affirmative vote of three-fourths of the Plans and
  (except                               three-fourths on the then total current weighted vote of all the
  signature                             Plans.  Note: Member Plans adopted 425% of MCO-RBC as the
  page).                                "equivalent" commencing 12/31/99.

  Replace the        Various            Amendments to Exhibit A -
  entire
  document                             - Eliminate the Quarterly Capital Benchmark worksheet as a
  (except                                BCBSA required report after 6/30/99;
  signature
  page).                               - Add the semi-annual MCO-RBC report as a BCBSA required report
                                         starting 12/31/98 and thereafter;

                                       - Eliminate the Quarterly Utilization Report as a BCBSA
                                         required report after 12/31/99;

                                       - Eliminate the Annual Cost Containment Report as a BCBSA
                                         required report effective immediately'

                                       - Add the Semi-Annual Benefit Cost Management Report as a BCBSA
                                         required report starting 6/30/00 and thereafter;

                                       - Eliminate IPDR Program as a required National Program after
                                         1/1/99;

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


<ARTICLE>                     5

<LEGEND>                         

     THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED BALANCE SHEET AT MARCH 31, 1998, CONDENSED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR
THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1998 AND THE NOTES TO THE  CONDENSED  FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS  AND IS QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY BY  REFERENCE  TO SUCH  FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.

</LEGEND>

<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
               


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-1-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         636,933
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               677,375
<PP&E>                                          58,019
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,701
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 867,621
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           69,535
<BONDS>                                        553,650      
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           526
<OTHER-SE>                                     252,737
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   867,621
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    98
<CGS>                                            7,391
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   34,823
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,929
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (38,558)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (38,558)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (38,558)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.73)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.73)
        



</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.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice: 8925]

In accordance with section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, as amended (“the Order”), I hereby determine that the individual known as Sangeen Zadran, also known as other aliases and transliterations, no longer meets the criteria for designation under the Order, and therefore I hereby revoke the designation of the aforementioned individual as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist pursuant to section 1(b) of the Order.

                    This notice shall be published in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                

                        Dated:                         *October 10, 2014.*

John F. Kerry,

Secretary of State.

[FR Doc. 2014-25171 Filed 10-21-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-10-P
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

23448825v1 0977737

Law Offices

HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP

2375 E. Camelback Rd.

Suite 750

Phoenix, AZ 85016

602-631-4400

602-631-4404

raoyama@hinshawlaw.com

mayers@hinshawlaw.com

Randy J. Aoyama (020096)

Michael R. Ayers (024318)

Attorneys for Defendants 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Timothy Judge,

Plaintiff,

v.

Midland Credit Management, Inc., a foreign 

corporation; and Midland Funding, LLC, a 

Delaware limited liability company,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-15-1729-PHX-DJH

NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT

Plaintiff Timothy Judge, and Defendants Midland Credit Management, Inc. and 

Midland Funding, LLC, hereby give notice that this matter has been settled. The Parties 

request the Court to vacate all dates and deadlines. A Stipulation for Dismissal will be 

filed with the Court upon its execution, but no later than forty-five (45) days from this 

Notice.

DATED this 22nd day of March, 2016. 

HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP

/s/ Randy J. Aoyama

Michael R. Ayers

Randy J. Aoyama

Michael R. Ayers

Attorneys for Defendants 

Case 2:15-cv-01729-DJH Document 23 Filed 03/22/16 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

23448825v1 0977737

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on the 22nd day of March, 2016, I electronically transmitted the 

attached document to the Clerk’s Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and 

transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF registrants:

John N. Skiba

Skiba Law Group, PLC

1640 South Stapley Drive, Suite 127

Mesa, Arizona 85204 

Attorneys for Plaintiff

By /s/ Tammy Rivera

Case 2:15-cv-01729-DJH Document 23 Filed 03/22/16 Page 2 of 2