alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Paul Kim, certify that:

1. I have
reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Cogent, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of
a 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.

Date: April 28, 2006



/s/    PAUL
KIMPaul Kim Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 10.27


 


AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE TO SECURITY AGREEMENT


 


This
AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE TO SECURITY AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”), dated as
of July 6, 1999, is entered into by and between Prospect Medical Group, Inc., a
California professional medical corporation (“Physician Group”), and
Prospect Medical Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Manager”), with
reference to the following facts:


 


A.            Physician Group and Manager have
previously entered into that certain Security Agreement (“Physician Group”),
dated as of July 3, 1997 (as amended from time to time, the “Agreement”):


 


B.            Physician Group and Manager desire
to amend the Agreement in accordance with the terms and conditions hereof.


 


NOW,
THEREFORE, the parties hereto hereby agree as follows:


 


1.             Defined Terms. All initially
capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings assigned
to such terms in the Agreement.


 


2.             Amendments to Section 1.


 


(a)           Section 1 of the Agreement is hereby
amended to add the following definition:


 


“ ‘Deposit Account’ means any demand, time, savings, passbook or
like account now or hereafter maintained by or for the benefit of Physician
Group with a bank, savings & loan association, a credit union or like
organization, and all funds and amounts therein, whether or not restricted or
designated for a particular purpose.”


 


(b)           The definition of “Collateral”
set forth in Section 1 of the Agreement is hereby amended in its entirety as
follows:


 


“ ‘Collateral’ means any and all of the Accounts, Deposit
Accounts, and Physicians Group’s Books, in each case whether now existing or
hereafter acquired or created, and any proceeds or products of any of the
foregoing, or any portion thereof, and any and all Accounts, money, or other
tangible or intangible property, resulting from the sale or disposition of the
Accounts or Deposit Accounts, or any portion thereof or interest therein and
the


 


1

















 


substitutions,
replacements, additions, accessions, products and Proceeds thereof.”


 


3.             Reaffirmation of the Agreement.
The Agreement as amended hereby and the Management Agreement shall continue to
be in full force and effect.


 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed and delivered this Amendment
as of the date first hereinabove written.


 


	
   

  	
  PROSPECT
  MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC.

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
   

  	
  /s/ R.
  Stewart Kahn

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Name:

  	
   

  	
  R. STEWART
  KAHN

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Title:

  	
   

  	
  Executive
  Vice Pres.

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  PROSPECT
  MEDICAL GROUP, INC.

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
   

  	
  /s/ R.
  Stewart Kahn

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Name:

  	
   

  	
  R. STEWART
  KAHN

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Title:

  	
   

  	
  Asst Vice Pres.

  	
   

  
								



 


2
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
unaudited consolidated balance sheet as of March 31, 1999 and the unaudited
consolidated statement of operations for the nine months ended March 31, 1999
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                  1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                  JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                    MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                              183,688
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                       961,011
<ALLOWANCES>                              0
<INVENTORY>                          84,785
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  1,317,535
<PP&E>                              156,027
<DEPRECIATION>                            0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    1,887,170
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>            11,900,472
<BONDS>                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<COMMON>                              7,059
<OTHER-SE>                                0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      1,887,170
<SALES>                          10,092,133
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                 10,092,133
<CGS>                            13,665,489
<TOTAL-COSTS>                    13,665,489
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 (10,080,593)
<INCOME-TAX>                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             (10,080,593)
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                    (10,080,593)
<EPS-BASIC>                         (1.47)
<EPS-DILUTED>                         (1.47)



</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.49B



 





Exhibit 10.49b




December 15, 2003




Mr. Burton S. August

AA&L Associates

c/o Monro Muffler Brake, Inc.

200 Holleder Parkway

Rochester, NY 14624



	 	 	 
	RE:

	 	Lease agreement between AA&L Associates (Landlord) and MONRO
Muffler/Brake & Service, Inc. (Tenant) for premises situate at 1910 Ridge
Road, West Seneca, NY [MMB #57]







Dear Burt:




Please accept this letter as Monro Muffler / Brake, Inc.’s official
notification of our intent to renew said lease agreement for the five-year
renewal period commencing on July 1, 2004 and expiring June 30, 2009. The rent
for said renewal period shall be $3,500.00 per month.



Tenant shall have one five-year renewal option remaining.



Please do not hesitate to contact me at 800-876-6676 ext. 384 if you have any
questions relative to the renewal.



Yours truly,



/s/ Thomas M. Aspenleiter



Thomas M. Aspenleiter

VP Real Estate



TMA:mc



26
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 541 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                    September 17, 1998.
    Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order 
without intervention of any point of order to consider in the House the joint 
resolution (H.J. Res. 128) making continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 
1999, and for other purposes. The joint resolution shall be considered as read 
for amendment. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the joint 
resolution to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 
debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Appropriations; and (2) one motion to recommit.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
EXHIBIT “A”

Case: 1:20-cv-03791 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/29/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:17
Case: 1:20-cv-03791 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/29/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:18
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 23

- 00360

- CR

ALBERTO GUTIERREZ

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from the 24th District Court of De Witt County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. 22

- 10

- 13,939

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered t his cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed as modified by
this Court . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. April 2 5, 2024
Ref. 08-18
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 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Terryson Ben, 

Defendant.

No. 16-04018MJ 

DETENTION ORDER 

 On July 28, 2016, Defendant appeared before this Court on a petition for 

revocation of unsupervised probation. The issue of detention was submitted to the Court. 

The Court considered the petition and file in determining whether Defendant should be 

released on conditions set by the Court. 

 The Court finds that Defendant, having previously been convicted and placed on 

unsupervised probation, and having appeared before the Court in connection with a 

petition to revoke his unsupervised probation, has failed to establish by clear and 

convincing evidence that he is not likely to flee or pose a danger to the safety of the 

community if released pursuant to Rule 46(d), and Rule 32.1(a)(6), Federal Rules of 

Criminal Procedure, and 18 U.S.C. § 3143. 

 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant be detained pending further 

proceedings. 

 Dated this 29th day of July, 2016. 

Honorable Eileen S. Willett

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:16-po-04018-DKD Document 13 Filed 07/29/16 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32.2

 

**Certification of President**

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of HyperSpace Communications, Inc. (the “*Company*”) hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:

 

(i) the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2005 (the “*Report*”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

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

 

 
|           | /s/ Mike Adkins |
|----------------|-----------------|
| March 31, 2006 | Mike Adkins     |
|           | President       |
H. Res. 508

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

July 30, 1998.

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule

XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the

Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of

the bill (H.R. 4276) making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and

related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30,

1999, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill

shall be dispensed with. Points of order against consideration

of the bill for failure to comply with clause 2(l)(6) of rule XI,

clause 7 of rule XXI, or section 401(a) of the Congressional

Budget Act of 1974 are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided

and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member

of the Committee on Appropriations. After general debate the

bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute

rule. Points of order against provisions in the bill for failure

to comply with clause 2 or 6 of rule XXI are waived. The
2

•HRES 508 EH

amendments printed in the report of the Committee on Rules

accompanying this resolution may be offered only by a Member designated in the report and only at the appropriate point

in the reading of the bill, shall be considered as read, shall

be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall

not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a

demand for division of the question in the House or in the

Committee of the Whole. All points of order against the

amendments printed in the report are waived. During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition on the

basis of whether the Member offering an amendment has

caused it to be printed in the portion of the Congressional

Record designated for that purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII.

Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. The

Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may: (1) postpone

until a time during further consideration in the Committee of

the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any amendment;

and (2) reduce to five minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any postponed question that follows another

electronic vote without intervening business, provided that the

minimum time for electronic voting on the first in any series

of questions shall be 15 minutes. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise
3

•HRES 508 EH

and report the bill to the House with such further amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question shall

be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto

to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Attest:

Clerk.
#### Wm. J. Rusk *v.*Milton W. Graves.

Vendor and Purchaser — Deficit or Surplus — Mistake or Fraud.

It is well settled that unless there is mistake or fraud in the conveyance of land, or the deficit or surplus is so great as that if the same had been known the sale would not have been made, on the terms expressed, relief will not be granted.

APPEAL PROM KENTON CIRCUIT COURT.

January 30, 1871.

Opinion by

Judge Peters :

The terms of the deed from appellee to appellant indicate that the sale was in gross, and not by the acre, and that conclusion *418is sustained by the evidence of Furber, the draftsman of the deed.

*Rankin, for appellant.*

*Muesils'& Furber, for appellee.*

He says, after he read the deed, appellee remarked that there was a mistake in the deed from his vendor to him as to the quantity recited, that there were only about 20 acres in the tract instead of 23 A 3R 228 poles as stated in his deed, and after the parties had discussed the question of quantity a while, Graves insisting that the statement of the quantity should be corrected, he then suggested the insertion of the words, “more or less” to obviate the difficulty, which the parties acquiesced in, and he, accordingly, inserted them.

In conveyances of this character, it is well settled that unless there is a mistake, or fraud, or the deficit, or surplus is so great as that if the same had been known the sale would not have been made on the terms expressed, relief will not be granted.

In this case appellant got the boundary of land he-contracted for; there was no fraud on the part of Graves, for before the deed was signed he announced in the presence of and to appellant that there was only about 20 in the boundary, saying that there was an error in his deed in reciting the quantity, and after that appellant accepted the deed with full information on the subject, and with the words *“more or less”*inserted for the express purpose of avoiding the very difficulty which is now attempted to be made.' And besides in the suit brought to enforce the vendor’s lien against appellant he never made any question as to quantity, or title, but submitted without resistance to a sale, and purchased the whole of the land for the unpaid price after he knew there was not as much land as he now claims to have purchased under the original contract.

All the facts and circumstances in this case tend to show that there was neither fraud, nor mistake in the contract and appellant is not entitled to any relief. Wherefore, the judgment is affirmed on the original appeal and reversed on the cross appeal, with directions to dismiss appellant’s petition.
**EXHIBIT 31.2****Certification of the Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.**I, Richard S. Kay, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-KSB/A-Amendment No. 1 of Xenonics Holdings,Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiods covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, theperiods presented in this report;  4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have: a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the small business issuer, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c) disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small businessissuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscalquarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’s internal controlover financial reporting; and 5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting**,**to the small businessissuer’s auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer’s board of directors(or persons performing the equivalent functions): a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the small business issuer’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the small business issuer’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.     Date: June 20, 2007 /s/ Richard S. Kay Name: Richard S. Kay    Title: Chief Financial Officer  
49
1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-60220 Summary Calendar

GEORGE DUNBAR PREWITT, JR.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

LUTHER ALEXANDER, In his official capacity as a member of the Washington county Board of Supervisors, Washington County, Mississippi, ET AL.

Defendants,

LUTHER ALEXANDER, In his official capacity as a member of the Washington County Board of Supervisors, Washington County, Mississippi; JAMIE MCGOWIN, In his official capacity as a member of

the Washingt on County Board of Supervisors, Washington County, Mississippi; ALFRED RANKINS, In his official capacity as a member of the Washington County Board of Supervisors, Washington County, Mississippi; LON PEPPER, In his official capacity as a member of

the Washington County Board of Supervi sors, Washington County, Mississippi; ELSIE ABRAHAM, In her official capacity as a member of

the Washington Count y Board of Supervisors, Washington County, Mississippi; GEORGE T. KELLY, JR.; JEROME HAFTER; ANDREW ALEXANDER;
MISSISSIPPI POWER & LIGHT COMPANY,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court For the Northern District of Mississippi

(4:94-CV94-B)

April 28, 1997* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

2 Before JONES, DeMOSS and PARKER

, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion

in awarding attorney fees and sanctions again st Appellant George

Dunbar Prewitt, Jr., we affirm. S ee Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx

Corp.

, 496 U.S. 384 (1990); T homas v. Capital Security Services,

Inc., 836 F.2d 866 (5th Cir. 1988).

It is ORDERED that appella nt’s motion to supplement the

appellant’s brief and reply brief by raisi ng the jurisdictional

issue of standing of Jane Virden is DENIED.

AFFIRMED. MOTION DENIED.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

Commodity Futures Trading Commission, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) Case No. 20-3758

vs. )

) Hon. Thomas A. Durkin

)

Long Leaf Trading Group, Inc. et al. )

)

Defendants. )

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT JAMES A. DONELSON’S

DOCKETING STATEMENT

Defendant-Appellant JAMES A. DONELSON, through his undersigned counsel,

submits the following docketing statement pursuant to Circuit Rules 3(c)(1) and 28(a):

1. Jurisdiction of the District Court. This action was originally filed in the 

United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Plaintiff’s complaint was

an action under Commodity Exchange Act (“Act”), 7 U.S.C §§ 1- 26 (2018), and 

accompanying Commission Regulations (“Regulations”), 17 C.F.R. pts. 1-190 (2019)

alleging violations of the Act and Regulations; the Complaint also sought injunctive relief. 

The district court had federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and 

supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1345 and Section 6c(a) of the Act, 7 

U.S.C. § 13a-1(a) (2018).

2. Appellate Jurisdiction. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh 

Circuit has jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 in that Defendant

James A. Donelson has filed a timely notice of appeal from a final judgment in the United 

States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

1

Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 127 Filed: 04/27/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:2921
(i) The Date of the Entry of Judgment or the Decree(s) Sought to Be Reviewed:

(1) The March 29, 2023, Final Judgment entered by the District 

Court and all related Orders including, but not limited to, the 

Opinion and Orders entered in this action on July 27, 2022, and 

December 6, 2022, respectively, granting Plaintiff’s Motion for 

Partial Summary Judgment and Plaintiff’s Motion for 

Supplemental Relief

(ii) The Filing Date of Any Motion for a New Trial orAlteration of the Judgment 

or Any Other Motion Claimed to Toll the Time Within Which to Appeal.

None.

(iii) The Disposition of Such a Motion and the Date of its Entry. Not applicable.

(iv) The Filing Date of the Notice of Appeal (Together with Information 

about an Extension of Time If One Was Granted). Defendant’s Notice of Appeal isfiled

simultaneously herewith on April 27, 2023.

(v) If the Case Is a Direct Appeal from the Decision of a Magistrate Judge,

the Dates on Which Each Party Consented in Writing to the Entry of Final

Judgment by the Magistrate Judge. Not applicable.

3. Information If the Appeal Is from an Order Other than from a Final Judgment.

Not applicable.

Dated: April 27, 2023 

2

Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 127 Filed: 04/27/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:2922
Respectfully submitted, 

Defendant James A. Donelson

BY: /s/ Charles E. McElvenny

Charles McElvenny, JD, MSA

Law Office of Charles E. McElvenny

1509 Waukegan Road

Suite 1133

Glenview, IL 60025

312-291-8330

charlie@cemlawfirm.com

3

Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 127 Filed: 04/27/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:2923