alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We consent to the incorporation by reference in Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to RegistrationStatement No. 333-134206 on Form S-3; and in Registration Statement No. 333-46161 on Form S-8 ofour report dated February 27, 2008, (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes anexplanatory paragraph relating to the Company’s adoption of Statement of Financial AccountingStandards No. 158), relating to the financial statements and financial statement schedule ofArizona Public Service Company, and the effectiveness of Arizona Public Company’s internal controlover financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Arizona Public ServiceCompany for the year ended December 31, 2007.Phoenix, Arizona
#### In the Matter of Craig S., Appellant, v Donna S., Respondent.

Submitted May 13, 2013;

decided June 4, 2013

Motion for reargument of motion for leave to appeal denied *[see*20 NY3d 862 (2013)].

Judge Abdus-Salaam taking no part.
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.
 Small Business Administration [Disaster Declaration #11768 and #11769]
 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.
 ACTION: Notice.
 SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Alabama (FEMA-1842-DR), dated 06/03/2009. *Incident:*
                         Severe storms, tornadoes, flooding, and straight-line winds. *Incident Period:*
                         05/06/2009 through 05/08/2009. *Effective Date:*
                         06/03/2009. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         08/03/2009. *Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         03/03/2010.
 ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 06/03/2009, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of governmental nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: Primary Counties: Autauga, Bullock, Elmore, Montgomery. The Interest Rates are: PercentOther (Including Non-Profit Organizations) With Credit Available Elsewhere
4.500( print page 28075)Businesses and Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere
4.000
 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 11768B and for economic injury is 11769B. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008) James E. Rivera, Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.


[FR Doc. E9-13826 Filed 6-11-09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
Exhibit
23








**CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**








We
consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
33-5524, 33-22850, 2-77932, 2-97291, 33-625, 33-45410, 33-53981, 333-82847 and
33-50960 on Form S-8 of our reports dated April 14, 2005, relating to the
consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule of Angelica
Corporation and management’s report on the effectiveness of internal control
over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of
Angelica Corporation for the year ended January 29, 2005.




/s/
Deloitte & Touche LLP




St.
Louis, Missouri


April 14,
2005
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 Applied Minerals, Inc. on Form 10K for the period ending  December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof,  I, Christopher T. Carney,  Interim 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 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.

















Applied Minerals, Inc.Date:  April 15, 2011
By:
/s/  CHRISTOPHER T. CARNEYChristopher T. CarneyInterim Chief Financial Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Lawrence PETISCA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-50830

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Nov. 7, 2006.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, Plaintiff-Appellee.

Judy Fulmer Madewell, Federal Public Defender’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Michael Lawrence Petisca pleaded guilty to two counts of bank robbery. *See*18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). He was sentenced prior to the Supreme Court’s issuance of *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). His case was remanded for resentencing after *Booker.*He now appeals, arguing that the district court erred in denying his request for a non-guideline sentence below the applicable guideline range.

The district court adequately addressed the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Petisca has failed to rebut the presumption of reasonableness attached to his guideline sentence. *See United States v. Alonzo,*435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir.2006).

AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
Document

SECOND AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


    THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) is entered into as of the date indicated below (the “Effective Date”) by and between LegalZoom.com, Inc. (the “Company”), and Rich Preece (“Executive”) (each, a “Party” and collectively, the “Parties”).


Executive is employed as the Company’s Chief Operating Officer pursuant to that certain Employment Agreement, dated June 16, 2021, as first amended October 27, 2021 (the “Employment Agreement”).  Executive and the Company have agreed to amend and restate Executive’s employment terms and the Employment Agreement as set forth herein.
1.Amendments to Employment Agreement. The Parties have agreed that, effective March 1, 2022, the Executive’s base salary will be changed job title shall be changed to $400,000 and effective January 1, 2022, the Executive’s Performance Bonus target amount shall be changed to 75% of the Executive’s Base Salary. All other terms and provisions of the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.  
2.Misc. Terms and Provisions.  This Amendment contains the entire agreement of the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and supersedes all other agreements between or among the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof; provided, however, that this Amendment only modifies but does not supersede the Employment Agreement.  This Amendment may be amended only with the written consent of each Party. This Amendment shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California.  This Amendment may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.


IN WITNESS HEREOF, the Parties have executed this Amendment as of the Effective Date.


LegalZoom.com, Inc.


By:   /s/ Dan Wernikoff


Its:  Chief Executive Officer








/s/ Rich Preece                         Effective Date: 3/12/2022
			
	258752718 v1
#### In the Matter of Gada B., an Infant. Erie County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Vianez V., Appellant, et al., Respondent.

[978 NYS2d 514]

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Erie County (Margaret O. Szczur, J.), entered October 15, 2012 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10. The order, among other things, adjudged that respondent Vianez V had neglected the subject child.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: In this proceeding pursuant to article 10 of the Family Court Act, respondent mother appeals from an order in which Family Court found that she neglected the subject child. We note at the outset that it appears that the mother surrendered her parental rights to the subject child during a subsequent court appearance. Assuming, arguendo, that this appeal is not moot because “the finding of neglect constitutes a permanent and significant stigma that might indirectly affect the mother’s status in future proceedings” *(Matter of Jamiar W. [Malipeng W.],*84 AD3d 1386, 1386-1387 [2011]; *cf. Matter of Simeon F.,*58 AD3d 1081, 1081-1082 [2009], *lv denied*12 NY3d 709 [2009]), we affirm. In this neglect proceeding, petitioner’s burden was to “demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence ‘first, that [the] child’s physical, mental or emotional condition has been impaired or is in imminent danger of becoming impaired and second, that the actual or threatened harm to the child is a consequence of the failure of the parent ... to exercise a minimum degree of care in providing the child with *1369proper supervision or guardianship’ ” *(Matter of Ilona H. [Elton H.],*93 AD3d 1165, 1166 [2012], quoting *Nicholson v Scoppetta,*3 NY3d 357, 368 [2004]; *see*Family Ct Act §§ 1012 [f] [i] [B]; 1046 [b] [i]). The court’s “findings of fact are accorded deference and will not be disturbed unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record” *(Matter of Kaleb U. [Heather V.*— Ryan *U.],*77 AD3d 1097, 1098 [2010]; *see Matter of Arianna M. [Brian M.],*105 AD3d 1401, 1401 [2013], *lv denied*21 NY3d 862 [2013]). Here, based upon the evidence presented by petitioner, combined with the adverse inference that the court properly drew based upon the mother’s failure to testify *(see Matter of Christine II.,*13 AD3d 922, 923 [2004]), we conclude that there is a sound and substantial basis to support the court’s finding that “the child was in imminent danger of impairment as a result of [the mother’s] failure to exercise a minimum degree of care” *(Matter of Paul U.,*12 AD3d 969, 971 [2004]; *see Matter of Claudina E.P. [Stephanie M.],*91 AD3d 1324, 1324 [2012]; *see generally Nicholson,*3 NY3d at 368-370).

Finally, “[e]ven assuming, arguendo, that we agree with the [mother] that the court did not adequately state the grounds for its determination, we conclude that the error is harmless because the determination is amply support [ed] by the record” *(Matter of Donell S. [Donell S.],*72 AD3d 1611, 1612 [2010], *lv denied*15 NY3d 705 [2010] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Present — Smith, J.E, Fahey, Bindley, Valentino and Whalen, JJ.
krt-20220630x10qex103






Date: June 10, 2022  To:  Global Wells Investment Group LLC  From:  East West Bank  Ref No: CFEWB2019061304  Subject:  Agreement to Terminate Interest RateSwap Transaction  The purpose of this agreement is to terminate the Interest Rate Swap transaction entered into on June 13, 2019  between East West Bank and Global Wells Investment Group LLC. This trade was effective on June 13, 2019 with a  maturity date of May 5, 2029 and has a Current Notional Amount of USD 20,642,484.00. This Agreement is an  amendment to and forms part of any and all documents confirming this Transaction.  Termination Payment. On June 14, 2022, East West Bank shall pay USD 824,768.00 to Global Wells Investment Group  LLC to the account specified below or otherwise specified in writing.  East West Bank and Global Wells Investment Group  LLC represent and acknowledge to the other that upon receipt of the termination payment specified above, no amounts  are owed by East West Bank or Global Wells Investment Group LLC to the other under the transaction.  If this agreement meets with your approval, kindly sign in the space provided below and return an executed copy of this  agreement to East West Bank.  East West Bank  By:  ________________________________  Name: Supat Tipayamongkol  Title: SVP – Interest Rate Contracts  Global Wells Investment Group LLC  By:  ________________________________ By:  ________________________________  Name: Alan Yu  Name: Marvin Cheng  Title: Manager Title: Manager
EXHIBIT 10.2

Electrosource, Inc.


                      AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE
                               TO
                     STOCK PURCHASE WARRANT
              To Purchase Shares of Common Stock of
                       ELECTROSOURCE, INC.
                    Expiring January 23, 1999

August 18, 1998                                  No.  ___________

      Warrant to Purchase _________ shares of Common Stock

     As of January 23, 1997, the undersigned, Electrosource, Inc.
(the  "Company"), a Delaware corporation, for good  and  valuable
consideration granted to _______________ ("Purchaser") a  warrant
to  acquire  shares  of Common Stock in the Company.   The  Stock
Purchase Warrant ("Warrant") dated January 23, 1997, was  granted
pursuant  to the terms of a Subscription Agreement ("Subscription
Agreement") dated as of January 23, 1997, between the Company and
the   Purchaser.   This  Amendment  Number  One  to  the  Warrant
incorporates all provisions of that Subscription Agreement herein
by reference.

      1.   Warrants.  The Company originally granted to Purchaser
the exclusive option to purchase from the Company all or any part
of an aggregate of __________________ (_______) shares ("Shares")
of  Common Stock of the Company at the exercise price of  _______
and ___/100 Dollars ($__________) per share.

          This  Amendment  Number  One  hereby  adjusts  the
          exercise  price to $2.5630 per share, as  approved
          by  the  Board  of  Directors at  their  regularly
          scheduled meeting held August 18, 1998.

      2.   Term.  The original Warrant terminates at 5:00 o'clock
P.M.,  San Marcos, Texas time, two years after its date of grant,
January 23, 1999.

          This  Amendment  Number  One  hereby  extends  the
          termination  date to five years from the  date  of
          grant  to  January 23, 2004, as  approved  by  the
          Board  of  Directors at their regularly  scheduled
          meeting held August 18, 1998.

           The  Warrant is not otherwise amended or modified
in any respect.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment
One as of the _____ day of ____________, 1998.

ELECTROSOURCE, INC.                PURCHASER


By:__________________________      _____________________________
   Michael G. Semmens              (Printed name)
   Chairman, President and CEO

The above form of Amendment Number One to Stock Purchase Warrant was
issued to the following:

125,000   Michael G. Semmens
25,003    James M. Rosel
50,000    William F. Griffin
25,003    Chris Morris
25,003    Mary Beth Koenig
25,019    Joseph U. Barton
25,019    Thomas U. Barton
150,117   Collins Capital Diversified Fund LP
15,094    Audrey T. Dearing
1,000     Langhorne Reid, III
55,625    Langhorne Reid, III
10,000    Eve Murphy Reid
9,000     Fred B. Dulock
9,000     Fred B. Dulock
7,500     Bill Kemp
7,500     Bill Kemp
12,750    James R. Phllips, Jr.
6,000     Compton Family Partners Ltd.
4,500     Bill N. Goss
3,000     Bill N. Goss
#### UNITED STATES v. VOMERO.

No. 41162.

District Court, E. D. New York.

Oct. 7, 1946.

J. Vincent Keogh, U. S. Atty., of New York City, and Hyman H. Goldstein, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Brooklyn, N.Y., for United States.

Leon Fischbein, of New York City, for defendant.

MOSCOWITZ, District Judge.

This motion is for an order to suppress for use as evidence some 400 grains of narcotics seized by the Government in the defendant’s home without a search warrant.

A motion for return of property and to suppress evidence upon five enumerated grounds is provided for by Rule 41(e) of the new Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. No formalities for making the motion are there specified. Rule 47, which is concerned with all criminal motions, provides that a motion “may” be supported by affidavit. It has been held that the word “may” was used advisedly by the framers of the new rules and that an affidavit is therefore permissible rather than mandatory, upon a motion to suppress where the defendant claims that the search and seizure was without a warrant and against his will. See United States v. Privinzini, S.D.N.Y., decided May 24, 1946, opinion recalled upon *276reargument September 24, 1946, 6 F.Supp. 207, Mandelbaum, J. It was there recognized that the court had inherent power to direct that an affidavit be submitted whenever it was found to be helpful in determining the issue raised and one was directed to be produced.

Where the motion is made upon the ground that the warrant is insufficient upon its face, as provided in subd. (e) (2) of Rule 41, it is conceivable that the furnishing of an affidavit by the defendant is permissive, inasmuch as the issue raised appears and may be determined upon the documents and papers alone before the court. But where the motion is predicated upon any of the other four grounds sanctioned by Rule 41, some evidence of probative value in affidavit form should be presented before a court is required to entertain the motion. When an order to suppress is sought because the property allegedly was illegally seized without a warrant, a motion unsupported by an affidavit setting forth the facts upon which the contention is based is insufficient and should be denied.

The affidavits submitted upon this application by defendant and the narcotic agent who made the seizure differ widely in their versions of the facts surrounding the entry into defendant’s dwelling. The factual issues will have to be determined after the taking of evidence. The motion is denied with leave to renew upon the trial.

Settle order on notice.
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATION**I, Michael R. Kramer, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of ATS Medical, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(f) and 15d- 15(f)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared; b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internalcontrol over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to providereasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparationof financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally acceptedaccounting principles; c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors; a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: August 9, 2007                    /s/  Michael R. Kramer   Name:  Michael R. Kramer   Title:  Chief Financial Officer
**EXHIBIT32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION

 

(PURSUANTTO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

 

(Subsections (a) and (b)of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)

 

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, UnitedStates Code), the undersigned officer of Apogee Technology, Inc., a Delawarecorporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify, that:

 

The quarterly report on Form 10-QSB for the quarterended September 30, 2005 (the “Form 10-QSB”) of the Company fully complies withthe requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934, and the information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 

 

 

 
| Dated: November 14, 2005 | /s/ Herbert M. Stein                       |
|--------------------------|--------------------------------------------|
|                     | Herbert M. Stein                           |
|                     | Chairman of the Board,                     |
|                     | President, Chief Executive Officer         |
|                     | (principal executive officer)              |
|                     |                                       |
| Dated: November 14, 2005 | /s/ Paul J. Murphy                         |
|                     | Paul J. Murphy                             |
|                     | Chief Financial Officer and Vice President |
|                     | Finance, (principal financial officer and  |
|                     | principal accounting officer)              |
|                     |                                       |

 

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company andwill be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

 

----