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

                                 EXHIBIT 10.212

                                  AMENDMENT TO
                      AMENDED AND RESTATED CREDIT AGREEMENT


        This Amendment to the Amended and Restated Credit Agreement
("Amendment") is made and entered into as of January 15, 2002, by and between
Trilon Dominion Partners L.L.C. ("Trilon Dominion") and Wilshire Technologies,
Inc. ("Borrower").

                              W I T N E S S E T H

        WHEREAS, the parties hereto have entered into an Amended and Restated
Credit Agreement dated as of March 31, 1998 (the "Agreement"); and

        WHEREAS, the parties hereto wish to further amend the Agreement as set
forth in this Amendment;

        NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the above premises and the mutual
covenants and agreements herein, the parties agree as follows:

        1. Amendment. Section 1.6 of the Agreement is hereby amended by
replacing the phrase, "or, (ii) January 31, 2001" in the second line of such
section with the phrase, "or, (ii) January 31, 2003". Except as specifically set
forth in this Amendment the Agreement and all other documents and agreements
entered into in connection with the Agreement including without limitation the
Warrants and Springing Warrants shall remain unchanged and in full force and
effect.

        2. Governing Law. Except as otherwise expressly provided, this Amendment
shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of
Delaware applicable to contracts made in such State and without regard to
conflicts of law doctrines.

        3. Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in one or more
counterparts and by different parties in separate counterparts. All of such
counterparts shall constitute one and the same agreement and shall become
effective when one or more counterparts have been signed by each party and
delivered to the other party.


<PAGE>


        IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be duly
executed and delivered as of the day and year first written above.

THE BORROWER:                               WILSHIRE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.


                                            By: /s/  Kathleen Terry
                                                -------------------------------
                                            Name:  Kathleen E. Terry
                                            Title: Chief Financial Officer


THE LENDER:                                 TRILON DOMINION PARTNERS, L.L.C.


                                            By: /s/ Ron Cantwell
                                                -------------------------------
                                            Name:  Ronald W. Cantwell
                                            Title: President



                                       2
#### Connell, Adm’r, etc., *v.*Utica, U. & E. R. Co. and others.

*(Circuit*Court, *N. D. New York.*

July 28, 1882.)

1. Removal of Cause—On Ground ob- Citizenship.

A causo is not removable under tlie first clau.se of section 2 of the act of March 3, 1875, unless all the parties on one side are citizens of different states from-those on the oilier, and all the defendants must join in the petition.

2. Same—Separate Controversy.

A suit is not removable under the second clause of that section unless it is a separate controversy, wholly between citizens of different states.

3. Repeal of Act of *1866.*

The second clause of section 639 of the Revised Statutes is repealed by the act of March 3, 1875.

*S. H. Wibcox,*for plaintiff.

J. *II. Choate,*for defendant King.

Blatchford, Justice.

This suit was not removable under the first clause of section 2 of the act of March 3,1875, because all the parties on one side of the controversy were not citizens of different states from those on the other, and also because all the defendants did not petition for removal. Nor was the suit removable under the second clause of that section, because there was not in the suit a separate controversy wholly between citizens of different states. To entitle a party to a removal under the second clause there must exist in the suit a separate and distinct cause of action, in respect to which all the necessary parties on one side are citizens of different states from those on tlie other. *Hyde*v. *Ruble,*3 Morr. Trans. 516. The present case does not fall within that of *Barney*v. *Latham, 103*U. S. 205. The decision of tlie state court, at the special and general terms, that the cause of action is entire, is a decision which it is proper for this court to follow, and it leads, to the conclusion that there is but a single controversy in the suit, and that parties to the suit who are citizens of the same state with the plaintiff, are necessary parties to the controversy to which the plaintiff and the defendant King are parties.

The case of *Hyde*v. *Ruble, supra,*decides that the second clause of section 639 of theRevised Statutes is repealed by the act of March 3, 1875.

The motion to remand is granted, with costs, to be taxed.
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-30336

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MILTON JACKSON,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 6:01-CR-60125-1

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

On appeal from the district court’s order that denied Milton Jackson relief

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), the Federal Public Defender appointed to

represent Jackson moved for leave to withdraw and filed a brief in accordance

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Jackson filed a response. 

We previously ordered that counsel file a supplemental brief addressing

whether there are any nonfrivolous issues regarding the district court’s failure

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 31, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-30336

2

to rule on Jackson’s pro se motions. Counsel has filed a supplemental brief

addressing this issue and has concluded that Jackson’s pro se motion qualifies

as a motion for reconsideration and renders the district court’s order nonfinal for

purposes of appeal. 

This court has held that a criminal defendant does not have the right to

a “hybrid representation.” United States v. Ogbonna, 184 F.3d 447, 449 & n.1

(5th Cir. 1999). Because the record reflects that Jackson was represented by

counsel at the time he filed his pro se motion for rehearing, his pro se motion

was an unauthorized motion, and the district court properly disregarded it. Id.

Consequently, the district court’s failure to address the motion does not divest

this court of jurisdiction.

Our independent review of the record, counsel’s brief, and Jackson’s

response discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s

motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further

responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

Counsel’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is DENIED.
Exhibit 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Neil Leibman, Chief Executive Officer of Gexa Corp., certify that:

         1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB/A of Gexa
Corp.;

         2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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;

         3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly 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, the periods presented in this report;

         4. The small business issuer's other certifying officers and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures
(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small
business issuer and have:

                  (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or
caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business
issuer, including its consolidated 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
disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions
about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end
of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

                  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business
issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected,
or is reasonably likely to materially effect, the small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting; and

         5. The small business issuer's other certifying officers and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the small business issuer'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 or operation of controls over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to 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 other employees who have a significant role in the small business
issuer's internal control over financial reporting.


------------------------
Neil Leibman
Chief Executive Officer
Dated: March 9, 2004
Unassociated Document


    LOAN
      AGREEMENT

    (English
      Translation)

    


    


    This
      is
      an agreement between the following parties:

    


    
      	
              Party
                A:

            	
              Fengying
                Zhang

            
	 	 
	
              Party
                B: 

            	
              Perfectenergy
                (Shanghai), Ltd.

            


    

    


    The
      parties hereto enter into this agreement voluntarily, after friendly
      negotiations, to enable Party B to borrow money from Party A, as
      follows:

    


    
      	 	
              1.

            	
              To
                address Party B’s cash flow issue, Party A agrees to loan Party B Two
                Million RMB.

            


    

    


    
      	 	
              2.

            	
              Party
                B agrees to borrow the money described above for cash flow, and agrees
                to
                pay Party A interest at the rate of 7.2% per
                annum.

            


    

    


    
      	 	
              3.

            	
              Funding
                method: Party A shall transfer the entire sum into Party B’s account, and
                the parties agree that interest shall begin on February 18,
                2006.

            


    

    


    
      	 	
              4.

            	
              Term
                of loan: February 18, 2006 to February 17, 2007. At the end of the
                term,
                Party B shall repay Party A the borrowed sum in one
                payment.

            


    

    


    
      	 	
              5.

            	
              Payment
                of interest: Party B shall pay Party A interest on a quarterly
                basis.

            


    

    


    
      	 	
              6.

            	
              The
                parties hereto agree to resolve any disputes amicably.
                

            


    

    


    
      	 	
              7.

            	
              This
                agreement will be in two originals, with each party holding one.
                This
                agreement will be effective upon the parties’ signatures and
                stamps.

            


    

    


    
      	
              Party
                A: Fengying Zhang

            	
              Party
                B: Perfectenergy (Shanghai), Ltd.

            
	 	 
	
              Signature:

            	
              Signature:

            
	 	 
	
              Seal:

            	
              Company
                Seal:

            
	 	 
	
              Date:
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 Annual Report of American Consolidated
Management Group, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending
December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), I, George E. Mappin, acting Chief Financial Officer
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
ss. 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; and

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

  /s/ George E. Mappin
-------------------------
George E. Mappin
Chief Executive Officer
July 26, 2006
*The opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-6608

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WILLIE MARION BUTLER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (8:07-cv-70000-HMH; 8:04-cr-00940-HMH) Submitted: November 20, 2007 Decided: November 28, 2007 Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. * Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Willie Marion Butler, Appellant Pro Se. Alan Lance Crick, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Willie Marion Butler seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Butler has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and di smiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<PAGE>   1

                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             Washington, D.C. 20549

                                 FORM 10-Q/A

                QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d)
                     OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934


                  For the quarterly period ended JUNE 24, 2000
                                                 -------------

                         Commission file number 1-12082

                              HANOVER DIRECT, INC.
             ------------------------------------------------------
             (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)


               DELAWARE                              13-0853260
        -----------------------             ---------------------------------
        (State of incorporation)            (IRS Employer Identification No.)


1500 HARBOR BOULEVARD, WEEHAWKEN, NEW JERSEY               07087
--------------------------------------------            --------------
  (Address of principal executive offices)               (Zip Code)


                                 (201) 863-7300
                                -----------------
                               (Telephone number)


Indicate by check mark whether the registrant: (1) has filed all reports
required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the
registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such
filing requirements for the past 90 days. YES X  NO
                                             --    --
Common stock, par value $.66 2/3 per share: 213,772,980 shares outstanding as of
August 3, 2000.


<PAGE>   2
                                EXPLANATORY NOTE

           This Form 10-Q/A is being filed by Hanover Direct, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the "Company"), as an amendment to its Quarterly Report on Form
10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June 24, 2000 to make certain additions to
Part II - Item 6(a), Exhibit 10.3, filed therewith.

                                   SIGNATURES

           Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
the Registrant has duly caused this amendment to report to be signed on its
behalf by the undersigned thereunto duly authorized.



HANOVER DIRECT, INC.

Registrant

       By: /s/ Brian C. Harriss
          -----------------------------------------------
           Brian C. Harriss
           Senior Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer
           (On behalf of the Registrant and as principal financial officer)





       Date: August 9, 2000


                                       19
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 Quarterly Report of QuantRx  Biomedical  Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Sasha
Afanassiev,  Chief  Financial  Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that to my knowledge:

1. the Report fully complies with the  requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


                                               /s/ Sasha Afanassiev
                                               -------------------------------
                                               Sasha Afanassiev,
                                               Chief Financial Officer

Date: May 15, 2006

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed June 9, 2021.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D20-1409

Lower Tribunal No. F97-23350

________________

Yosvany Hernandez,

Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Appellee.

An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) 

from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Cristina Miranda, Judge.

Yosvany Hernandez, in proper person.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before HENDON, MILLER, and LOBREE, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD

      Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as created by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Books-A-Million, Inc.
(the "Company") hereby certifies, to the best of such officer's knowledge, that:

      (i) the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the
   fiscal year ended January 29, 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.

   Dated: April 28, 2005                   /s/ Clyde B. Anderson
                                           -----------------------------
                                           Clyde B. Anderson
                                           Executive Chairman of the Board
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the annual report of Centrue Financial Corporation (the
Company) on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Thomas
A. Daiber, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company. /s/ Thomas A. Daiber

Thomas A. DaiberChief Executive OfficerMarch 29, 2004
EXHIBIT
      10.9

     

    SHARE
      TRANSFER AGREEMENT 

     

    THIS
      SHARE TRANSFER AGREEMENT is made and entered into on October 16, 2005 by and
      between Beijing Huiyuan Duoyuan Digital Printing Technology Research Institute,
      a China-based corporation (“Huiyuan Duoyuan”), and Duoyuan Digital Printing
      Technology Industry (China) Co., Ltd., a China-based corporation (“Duoyuan
      China”).  Both corporations are shareholders of Langfang Duoyuan Digital
      Technology Co., Ltd. (“Langfang Duoyuan”).

     

    Huiyuan
      Duoyuan agrees to transfer 90% of its shares of Langfang Duoyuan to Duoyuan
      China.

     

    Upon
      the
      closing of the Share Transfer, Duoyuan China shall have 95% of the shares and
      Huiyuan Duoyuan will have 5% of the shares of Langfang Duoyuan
      respectively.

     

    The
      purchase price is RMB36,000,000.  Duoyuan China shall pay the purchase
      price to Huiyuan Duoyuan within 30 days after this Agreement becomes
      effective.