alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 10.30


 




FIFTH AMENDMENT TO DEPOSIT PROCESSING SERVICES AGREEMENT







This FIFTH AMENDMENT TO DEPOSIT PROCESSING SERVICES AGREEMENT (this "Amendment") is entered into as of November 30, 2012, by and between Higher One, Inc. ("Higher One") and Cole Taylor Bank ("Bank").







WHEREAS, Higher One and Bank are parties to that certain Deposit Processing Services Agreement dated as of March 29, 2012, as amended (the "Deposit Processing Services Agreement"); and







WHEREAS, the parties hereto desire to amend the terms of the Deposit Processing Services Agreement in accordance with the terms of this Amendment; and







NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereto agree as follows:


 









1.  Unless otherwise defined in this Amendment, all capitalized terms used herein shall have the definitions indicated in the Deposit Processing Services Agreement.







2.  The final sentence of Section 2.11 of the Deposit Processing Services Agreement is hereby amended and restated as follows:


"Furthermore, the Parties shall draft, finalize and execute a transition agreement addressing each Party's responsibilities in conjunction with the future termination of this Agreement and Depositor Program on, or prior to, November 30, 2012."







2.  This Amendment may not be amended, waived or modified in any manner without the prior written consent of each party hereto.







3.  Except as specifically amended and modified hereby, all of the terms and conditions of the Deposit Processing Services Agreement shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect. This Amendment shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Delaware without regard to its conflict of laws rules.







4.  This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.







[SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]













IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Amendment as of the date first written above.












COLE TAYLOR BANK







By: /s/ Randall T. Conte


Its: CFO












HIGHER ONE, INC.







By: Miles Lasater


Its: COO
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

:

DONALD A. BURISS, : CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-861 (MLC)

:

Plaintiff, : O P I N I O N

:

v. :

:

FARES SURGICAL ASSOCIATES, :

P.A., et al., :

:

Defendants. :

 :

THE PLAINTIFF PRO SE — not the defendants — removed this

action from New Jersey state court. (Dkt. entry no. 1, Rmv.

Not.; id., Ex. A, State Court Complaint.) The document filed by

the plaintiff is a notice of removal; it is incorrectly

identified on the docket as an original federal complaint. (See

dkt. entry no. 1.)

“[I]T IS AXIOMATIC that a plaintiff may not remove an action

to federal court.” La Chemise Lacoste v. Alligator Co., 506 F.2d

339, 343 n.4 (3d Cir. 1974); see Conner v. Salzinger, 457 F.2d

1241, 1242-43 (3d Cir. 1972) (stating same); Redmer v. Bor. of

Pine Beach, No. 91-4572, 1991 WL 247002, at *2 (D.N.J. Nov. 18,

1991) (stating “plaintiffs’ attempt to remove their own case to

federal district court is ineffectual”). The Court will

therefore remand the action to state court. For good cause 

Case 3:11-cv-00861-MLC-DEA Document 3 Filed 04/29/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 38
appearing, the Court will issue an appropriate order and

judgment.1

 s/ Mary L. Cooper 

MARY L. COOPER

United States District Judge

Dated: April 29, 2011

 The plaintiff asserts jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1

§ 1332. (See Rmv. Not. at 1 (stating “jurisdiction founded on

diversity of citizenship” and “Plaintiff is a citizen of . . . New

Jersey and [two of the defendants] . . . are citizens of . . .

Pennsylvania”).) The assertion is without merit, as it is obvious

from the face of the Complaint that several other defendants are

New Jersey citizens, and thus the plaintiff is not a “citizen[]

of [a] different State[]” in relation to each defendant. 28

U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1); see Lincoln Prop. Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81,

89 (2005) (reading “the statutory formulation ‘between . . .

citizens of different States’ to require complete diversity

between all plaintiffs and all defendants” (emphasis added)).

2

Case 3:11-cv-00861-MLC-DEA Document 3 Filed 04/29/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 39
Exhibit 32.1


CERTIFICATION





Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, each of the undersigned officers of Spring Creek Healthcare Systems, Inc., (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to each such officer’s knowledge, that:





(1)    The quarterly report on form 10-q of the Company for the annual period ended March 31, 2011 (“the Report”) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and





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





Dated: May 18, 2011
By:
/s/ Kelly T. HickelKelly T. Hickel

Chief Executive Officer





Dated: May 18, 2011
By:
/s/ Jan E. ChasonJan E. Chason

Chief Financial Officer





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.
Exhibit 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection with the Quarterly report of China Pharma Holdings, Inc. (the
"Company")  on 10-KSB for the period  ended  December 31, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Xinhua
Wu,  Chief  Financial  Officer of the  Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
section 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 and 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.

     A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has
been  provided  to China  Pharma  Holdings,  Inc.  and will be retained by China
Pharma Holdings, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.


                              Date: March 28, 2008

                                By: /s/ Xinhua Wu
                                    Xinhua Wu
                             Chief Financial Officer
MICHAEL F. DURANTE, et al.,

Defendants.

CONSENT ORDER

THIS MATTER having been opened to the Court by counsel for defendant

Michael F. Durante, M.D. (“Dr. Durante”), and on notice to all counsel ofthe Government

(AUSA Anthony J. Mahajan, appearing), and upon the prior proceedings hereto, and for good

cause shown.

IT IS ON THIS_i-/DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2012, HEREBY ORDERED as

follows:

I) The Government shall place in a sealed evidence envelope all iterations of

the Rothbartllzzo recordings captured by the Government on or about January 11,2010 and

make them immediately available to counsel for Dr. Durante who shall make them available to

Dr. Durante’s consultant, Paul Ginsberg (“Ginsberg”) of Professional Audio Laboratories, Inc.,

for his professional analysis;

2) After Ginsberg has completed his work with the Rothbartflzzo recordings,

he shall reseal the same and return it to counsel for Dr. Durante who shall return the same to the

Government;

3) The Government shall pay all costs associated with Ginsberg’s work with

the Rothbart/lzzo recordings; and
ENTER:

on. Stanley R. Chesler

We are authorized to and do agree to the form and entry ofthe foregoing Order.

HODGSON RUSS, LLPBY: 

9th1 Fleming (CF-2682) ) /Jillian M. Searles (admitted p0 hoc vice) 1540 Broadway /

New York, NY 10036

646-218-7644

Attorneysfor Defendant Michael F Durante, MD.

BY: 

AUSA Anthony 3, Mahajan

AUSA Randall H. Cook

970 Broad Street

Newark, NJ 07102-2535

973-645-2700

Attorneysfor the United States
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jua Smith, Appellant.

[853 NYS2d 892]

The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel *(see Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745 [1983]; *People v Stultz,*2 NY3d 277 [2004]). Rivera, J.P., Santucci, Miller and Covello, JJ, concur.
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo 

 

No. 07-22-00296-CR 

 

MICHAEL DEAN DAVIS, APPELLANT 

V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE 

On Appeal from the County Criminal Court No. 2 

Tarrant County, Texas1 

Trial Court No. 1711862, Honorable Betty Arvin, Presiding 

December 29, 2022 

ORDER OF ABATEMENT AND REMAND 

Before PARKER and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ. 

Appellant, Michael Dean Davis, appeals his conviction for driving while 

intoxicated.2 The appellate record was originally due November 28, 2022. The clerk’s 

record was filed by this deadline, but the reporter’s record was not. By letter of December 

8, 2022, we notified the reporter that the record was overdue and directed her to advise 

1 Originally appealed to the Second Court of Appeals, this appeal was transferred to this Court by 

the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalizations efforts. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001.

2 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 49.04.
2

this Court of the status of the record by December 19. To date, the reporter’s record has 

not been filed and the reporter has had no further communication with this Court. 

Accordingly, we abate the appeal and remand the cause to the trial court for further 

proceedings. See TEX. R. APP. P. 35.3(c) (“The trial and appellate courts are jointly 

responsible for ensuring that the appellate record is timely filed.”); 37.3(a)(2) (requiring 

appellate courts to “make whatever order is appropriate to avoid further delay and to 

preserve the parties’ rights” when the appellate record is not timely filed). On remand, 

the trial court shall determine the following:

(1) what tasks remain to complete the filing of the reporter’s record;

(2) why the reporter has not completed the necessary tasks;

(3) what amount of time is reasonably necessary for the completion of those 

tasks; and

(4) whether the reporter can complete the tasks within the time the trial court 

finds reasonable.

Should the trial court determine that the reporter will require more than thirty days 

to complete, certify, and file the reporter’s record, it shall arrange for a substitute reporter

to do so. The trial court is directed to enter such orders necessary to address the 

aforementioned questions. So too shall it include its findings on those matters in a 

supplemental clerk’s record and cause that record to be filed with this Court by January 

30, 2023.

Should the reporter file the record on or before January 12, 2023, she is directed 

to immediately notify the trial court of the filing, in writing, whereupon the trial court shall 

not be required to take any further action.
3

It is so ordered.

Per Curiam

Do not publish.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1380

FRANKLIN BASNIGHT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus HAMPTON ROADS SHIPPING ASSOCIATION, International Longshoremen’s Association Fringe Benefit Escrow Fund’s (HRSA-ILA Fund); MANAGEMENT; JOHN CALVERT BOWERS, President, International Longshoremen’s Association, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Walter D. Kelley, Jr., District Judge. (2:04-cv-00782-WDK) Submitted: August 3, 2007 Decided: August 30, 2007 Before SHEDD and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Franklin Basnight, Appellant Pro Se. Dean Taylor Buckius, VANDEVENTER & BLACK, LLP, Norfolk, Virginia; David Andrew Buzard, GLASSER & GLASSER, Norfolk, Virginia; John P. Sheridan, GLEASON, MARRINAN & MAZOLA MARDON, PC, New York, New York; Carroll Arthur Rutter, Jr., RUTTER & MILLS, LLP, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Franklin Basnight appeals the district court’s order adopting in part and modifying in part the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation to dismiss his hybrid action under the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, 29 U.S.C. § 185 (2000), and the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 151-169 (2000), and dismissing all pending motions as moot. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Basnight v. Hampton Roads Shipping Ass’n , No. 2:04-cv-00782-WDK (E.D. Va. filed March 21, 2007; entered March 22, 2007). 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.

AFFIRMED
#### In the Matter of Richard Simpson, Appellant, v Beata Ptaszynska, Respondent.

[852 NYS2d 802]

The Family Court properly denied that branch of the father’s motion which was, in effect, for permission to file a petition for a change of custody since the father failed to demonstrate nonfrivolous grounds for such relief *(see Matter of Simpson v Ptaszynska,*41 AD3d 608 [2007]).

Contrary to the father’s contentions, the Family Court was not required to hold a hearing regarding visitation where he did not request a hearing, and the court had sufficient information to enable it to determine the best interests of the subject child *(see Matter of Razo v Leyva,*3 AD3d 571 [2004]; *Matter of Vangas v Ladas,*259 AD2d 755 [1999]; *Matter of Goldman v Goldman,*201 AD2d 860, 862 [1994]; *Kuleszo v Kuleszo,*59 AD2d 1059, 1060 [1977]).

The father’s remaining contentions are without merit. Mastro, J.P., Covello, Eng and Belen, JJ., concur.
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5268

To amend title 49, United States Code, to require the National Transportation Safety Board to investigate all fatal railroad grade crossing accidents. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 7, 2004

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL

To amend title 49, United States Code, to require the National Transportation Safety Board to investigate all 

fatal railroad grade crossing accidents.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Fatal Grade Crossing 

5 Accident Investigations Act’’. 
2

•HR 5268 IH 

1 SEC. 2. GRADE CROSSING ACCIDENTS. 

2 Section 1131(a)(1)(C) of title 49, United States 

3 Code, is amended by inserting ‘‘, including a railroad 

4 grade crossing accident,’’ after ‘‘railroad accident’’.

Æ
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D19-1045

_____________________________

CHARLES JONES,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

_____________________________

Petition for Belated Appeal—Original Jurisdiction.

April 17, 2019

PER CURIAM.

The petition for belated appeal is denied.

LEWIS, WETHERELL, and JAY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Charles Jones, pro se, Petitioner.
2

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.
**EXHIBIT 32.1****Section 906 Principal Executive Officer Certification**I, Michael L. Chasen, Chief Executive Officer of Blackboard Inc. (“the Company”), do herebycertify, under the standards set forth in and solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:1. The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 (the“Annual Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and2. The information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.Dated: February 23,2007                                                       /s/ MICHAEL L. CHASEN   Michael L. Chasen   Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 12.2

CFO SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION

I, Thelma G. Oribello, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F/A of PSi Technologies Holdings, 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;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows
of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

4. The companys other certifying officer(s) 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 company 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 company, 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 company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 companys internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period
covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the companys internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The companys other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the companys auditors and the audit committee of
companys board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) All significant deficiencies and
material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the company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 companys
internal control over financial reporting.



By:

/S/    THELMA G.
ORIBELLOName:

Thelma G. OribelloTitle:

Chief Financial OfficerAugust 16, 2006
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

January Term 2014

JACOBRIAN BRAY,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D14-1168

[July 2, 2014]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Martin J. Bidwill, Judge; L.T. Case Nos. 06-12082 CF10A 

and 06-4676 CF10A.

Jacobrian Bray, Crawfordville, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The defendant appeals the trial court’s denial of a motion to correct 

illegal sentence, pursuant to Rule 3.800(a) of the Florida Rules of Criminal 

Procedure. The motion raised the same sentencing challenge as did his 

prior motions for post-conviction relief. The issues are therefore barred by 

collateral estoppel. We affirm and caution the defendant that the filing of 

further frivolous appeals will result in sanctions. 

In this rule 3.800(a) motion, the defendant challenged a ten-year 

mandatory minimum sentence imposed for actual possession of a firearm

in count one, and the three-year mandatory minimum for actual 

possession of a firearm in count four. He argued that even though he pled 

guilty to the charges, the trial court was required to make a specific finding 

of actual possession to impose the mandatory minimum term under 

section 775.087(1), Florida Statutes (2006). The defendant’s argument is 

meritless. His guilty pleas to the counts charging actual possession of a 

firearm mandated imposition of the mandatory minimum terms. See State 

v. Moore, 854 So. 2d 832 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). 
2

The defendant is also procedurally barred from raising this challenge 

because he raised the same or similar challenges in Bray v. State, 995 So. 

2d 976 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008), and Bray v. State, 68 So. 3d 247 (Fla. 4th

DCA 2011). See State v. McBride, 848 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 2003); Kittles v. 

State, 83 So. 3d 958 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). 

The defendant’s motion is procedurally barred, an abuse of the postconviction procedure, and meritless. We therefore find this appeal 

frivolous, and caution the defendant that any future frivolous filing in this 

court will result in referral to prison officials for consideration of 

disciplinary procedures, which may include forfeiture of gain-time. 

§§ 944.279(1), 944.28(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2012). The defendant is also 

cautioned that future frivolous filings may result in sanctions by this 

court, including a prohibition against pro se filings. State v. Spencer, 751 

So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999). 

Affirmed.

MAY, CONNER and FORST, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
DINO RAMBHAROSE CONTINUANCE ORDER

This matter having come before the Court on the joint

application of Paul J. Fishman, United States Attorney for the

District of New Jersey (Vikas Khanna, Assistant U.S. Attorney,

appearing), and defendant Dino Rambharose(Lisa Mack, AssistantFederal Public Defender 1appearing) for an order granting a

continuance of the proceedings in the above-captioned matter for

a period of 60 days, and the defendant being aware that he has

the right to have the matter brought to trial within 70 days of

the date of his appearance before a judicial officer of this

court pursuant to Title 18 of the United States Code, Section

3161(c) (1), and as the defendant has consented to such a

continuance, and for good and sufficient cause shown,

IT IS THE FINDING OF THIS COURT that this action should be

continued for the following reasons:

1. Plea negotiations are currently in progress, and both

the United States and the defendant desire additional time to

finalize a plea agreement, which would render trial of this

matter unnecessary;

2. Defendant has consented to the aforementioned
defendant in a speedy trial.

WHEREFORE, on this (2(2’7 day of July, 2011,

IT IS ORDERED that this action be, and hereby is, continued

for a period of 60 days; and it is further

ORDERED that the period from and including July 21, 2011,

through and including September 19, 2011, shall be excludable in

computing time under the Speedy Trial Act of 1974, pursuant to

Title 18, United States Code, Section 3161(h) (7) (a>; and it is

further
Opposition: / /

Motions hearing

/ /

Trial /i‘I 1117

N. Stanley R. Chesler

United States District Judge

Form and entry

consent d to:

Vi as Khanna

Assistant U.S. AttorneyLis ack

Assistant Federal Public Defender

Counsel for Dino Rambharose