alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UC Agreement No.: [****]


UC Case No(s): [****]


 


AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO LETTER OF INTENT







This Amendment No. 3 to the Letter of Intent dated as of May 11, 2010 and bearing UC Agreement No. [****] (“Agreement”) by and between The Regents of the University of California (“The Regents”) and Nascent Water Technologies, Inc. (“Nascent Water”) is effective May 5, 2011.







WHEREAS, the original Term of the Agreement is scheduled to end on May 11, 2011;







WHEREAS, the parties desire to extend the Term by [****] in order to continue negotiations for a license agreement;







WHEREAS, the parties acknowledge that Nascent Water will continue to reimburse The Regents during the extended Term for patent costs related to the UC Cases covered under the Agreement; and







WHEREAS, for mutual consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties desire to modify the terms of the Agreement.







NOW THEREFORE, the Agreement is hereby amended as follows:







1.           Capitalized terms not defined herein shall have the same meaning set forth in the Agreement.







2.           The Term of the Agreement is hereby extended until October 11, 2011.  The Agreement will automatically expire on October 11, 2011 unless it is further extended by mutual agreement of the parties.







3.           The following extension fee is hereby added to the Agreement:







“A one-time non-creditable, non-refundable extension fee of $[****].”  A check in the amount of $[****] for the extension fee should be enclosed when this Amendment No. 3 is returned to The Regents for final execution.  The check should be made out to The Regents of the University of California.







4.           Except as expressly modified herein, all other provisions of the Agreement remain in full force and effect and are hereby reaffirmed by the parties.


 








 


ACCEPTED AND AGREED:








	
NASCENT WATER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

	 	  	
THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF


CALIFORNIA


	  	  	 	 	  	  	  	 
	
By:

	  	 	 	
By:

	  	 
	  	  	 	 	  	  	  	 
	
Name:

	  	 	 	
Name:

	
Sherylle Mills Englander

	 
	  	  	 	 	  	  	  	 
	
Title:

	  	 	 	
Title:

	
Director, Technology & Industry Alliances


	  	  	 	 	  	  	  	 
	
Date:

	  	 	 	  	
Date:
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-16-0000006 23-JUN-2017 08:10 AM
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

          - [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4327-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2017-0001]

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Wyoming (FEMA-4327-DR), dated August 5, 2017, and related determinations.

# DATES:

This amendment was issued September 1, 2017.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Wyoming is hereby amended to include the following area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of August 5, 2017.

Washakie County for Public Assistance.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Brock Long,

Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

[FR Doc. 2017-19382 Filed 9-12-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
#### Mohammad Samih BARAKAT, petitioner, v. LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF VIRGINIA.

No. 96-1161.

Supreme Court of the United States.

May 12, 1997.

*1726Petition for rehearing denied.
Amendment No. 1 to the Change in Control Agreement for R. Roger Berrier, Jr.



 Exhibit 10.2 
 AMENDMENT NO. 1 
 TO THE 

CHANGE IN CONTROL AGREEMENT FOR R. ROGER BERRIER, JR. 

This Amendment No. 1, effective the 31st day of December, 2011, to the Change in Control Agreement for R. ROGER BERRIER, JR., dated August 14, 2009 (the
“Agreement”) between Unifi, Inc. (the “Company”) and R. ROGER BERRIER, JR. (the “Executive”). 

WHEREAS, the Agreement provides certain severance benefits in the event the Executive’s employment is terminated without
“Cause” or the Executive resigns for “Good Reason” following a “Change in Control” of the Company (as such terms are defined in the Agreement); 
 WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 14(a) of the Agreement, the Company may amend the Agreement at any time; and 
 WHEREAS, the Company now desires to amend the Agreement to extend the term of the Agreement for an additional three years and to make certain other clarifications. 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT, the Agreement is hereby amended as follows, effective December 31, 2011: 

1. Section 1(a) of the Agreement is hereby amended by striking the phrase “December 31, 2011” and replacing it with
“December 31, 2014”. 
 2. Section 3(e) of the Agreement is amended by replacing the first sentence as follows: 

“Following a Change in Control and during the term of this Agreement, the Executive may terminate the Executive’s employment for
Good Reason.” 
 3. Section 4(b) of the Agreement is amended by replacing the last sentence as follows: 

“The determination of any reduction in the severance payments under this Section 4 pursuant to the foregoing proviso shall be
made by the Company’s Independent Certified Public Accountants, and their decision shall be conclusive and binding on the Company and the Executive.” 
 4. In all other respects not amended, the Agreement is hereby ratified and confirmed. 
 * * * Signature Page to Follow * * * 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment No. 1 to
be executed on this the 3rd day of January, 2012.

  

			
	UNIFI, INC.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ CHARLES F. MCCOY

		 	CHARLES F. MCCOY
		 	Vice President
	
	EXECUTIVE
	
	 /s/ R. ROGER BERRIER, JR.

	R. ROGER BERRIER, JR.
<PAGE>   1



                                                                   EXHIBIT 11




                DIALYSIS CORPORATION OF AMERICA AND SUBSIDIARIES

                 COMPUTATION OF (LOSS) EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                  Year Ended December 31,
                                             --------------------------------
                                             1996            1995        1994
                                             ----            ----        ----
<S>                                         <C>           <C>          <C>
PRIMARY AND FULLY DILUTED

Weighted average shares outstanding         3,237,243     2,432,844    2,432,844
                                            =========     =========    =========

Net (loss) income                           $ (22,961)    $(167,271)   $  74,905
                                            =========     =========    =========

Net (loss) income per share                     $(.01)        $(.07)        $.03
                                                =====          ====         ====
</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .

COMMUNITY CENTRAL BANK CORPORATION
FORM 10-Q (continued)

                                   EXHIBIT 11
                        COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                             Three Months Ended   Six Months Ended
                                    June 30,            June 30,
                             ------------------   ----------------
                                2007     2006       2007     2006
                               ------   ------     ------   ------
                             (in thousands, except per share data)
<S>                          <C>        <C>       <C>       <C>
BASIC
Net Income                     $  536   $  631     $1,194   $1,334
/ Weighted Average Shares       3,868    4,020      3,925    4,012
                               ------   ------     ------   ------
Basic Earnings Per Share       $ 0.14   $ 0.16     $ 0.30   $ 0.33
                               ======   ======     ======   ======
DILUTED
Net Income                     $  536   $  631     $1,194   $1,334
/ Weighted Average Shares       3,919    4,089      3,981    4,081
                               ------   ------     ------   ------
Diluted Earnings Per Share     $ 0.14   $ 0.15     $ 0.30   $ 0.33
                               ======   ======     ======   ======
</TABLE>

Notes:

-    Weighted average shares outstanding have been adjusted to reflect the 5%
     stock dividend in June of 2007.


                                       36
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Peter ABBADESSA, George Vellios, Anthony Lucania, Gerard Cavera, also known as Gerry Lake, Defendants, Frank Chinnici, also known as Frankie Dogs, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-2398-cr.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Jan. 29, 2008.

B. Alan Seidler, Esq., New York, NY, for Appellant.

Benton J. Campbell, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, Emily Berger, Taryn A. Merkl, Assistant United States Attorneys, Brooklyn, NY, for Appellee.

PRESENT: Hon. ROBERT D. SACK, Hon. ROBERT A. KATZMANN and Hon. REENA RAGGI, Circuit Judges.

*348SUMMARY ORDER

Frank Chinnici appeals from a judgment of conviction entered May 15, 2006, following his plea of guilty to conspiracy to commit a Hobbs Act robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a). Chinnici was sentenced to 97 months of imprisonment, three years of supervised release, $158,000 in mandatory restitution, and a $100 special assessment. He appeals on the grounds that there was an insufficient factual basis for the district court to accept his plea, and that the sentence imposed was unreasonable. We assume the parties’ and counsel’s familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of this case, and with the issues raised on appeal.

With respect to his challenge to the factual basis for his plea, we conclude that Chinniei’s admission of an intended conspiratorial purpose to “obstruct and delay commerce in the movement of articles and commodities in commerce” provides a sufficient factual basis for the nexus to interstate commerce required for a Hobbs Act conviction. Where, as here, “the charge is uncomplicated, the indictment detailed and specific, and the admission unequivocal,” “[a] reading of the indictment to the defendant coupled with his admission of the acts described in it [is] a sufficient factual basis for a guilty plea....” *United States v. O’Hara,*960 F.2d 11, 13 (2d Cir.1992) (second alteration in original; citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

As for his sentence, there is some doubt as to whether the appeal waiver in Chinniei’s plea agreement waives his ability to challenge the reasonableness of it. In any event, we do not find that the district court committed clear error in attributing conduct to Chinnici for the purpose of imposing the sentence enhancements, and we otherwise find the sentence to be reasonable under the circumstances.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the District Court is hereby AFFIRMED.
## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02-17-00397-CV

IN RE CCPA ENTERPRISES, INC. A ND RICKEY CONRADT RELATORS

---------- ORIGINAL PROCEEDING TRIAL COURT NO. 348-237051-09

---------- 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

---------- The court has considered relators’ peti tion for writ of mandamus, relators’ motion for temporary relief, and real party in interest’s responses to the petition and to the motion. We are of the opi nion that all relief should be denied. Accordingly, we lift our Nove mber 13, 2017 stay of t he trial court’s October 12, 2017 “Order to Distribute Interpled Funds,” and we deny relato rs’ petition for writ

of mandamus.

PER CURIAM PANEL: KERR, J .; SUDDERTH, C.J.; and GABRIEL, J. DELIVERED: December 4, 2017

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4, 52.8(d).
CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY

#### Commonwealth of Virginia v. Joel Rodriquez

September 22, 2003

Case No. (Criminal) 096613

By Judge Randy I. Bellows

This cause came before the Court upon Mr. Rodriquez’s Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis, filed January 28, 2003.

As has recently been stated in a similar case arising in this Circuit, *see Charles Smith v. Commonwealth, 62*Va. Cir. 68 (2003), the writ of error coram nobis is an ancient common law writ used by courts “to correct its own record with reference to a vital fact not known when the judgment was rendered, and which could not have been presented by a motion for a new trial, appeal, or other existing statutory proceeding.... It lies for errors of fact not apparent on the record, not attributable to the applicant’s negligence, and which if known by the court would have prevented rendition of the judgment, [and] does not lie for newly-discovered evidence or any newly-arising facts.” *Dobie v. Commonwealth,*198 Va. 762, 768, 96 S.E.2d 747 (1957); *see also*Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-677 (Michie 2003). Further, a writ of error coram nobis is used to “further the interests of justice in cases where there is no other remedy.” *Commonwealth v. Singh,*53 Va. Cir. 88, 89 (Fairfax, 2000) (citing *Dobie*v. *Commonwealth,*198 Va. at 770). Finally, a writ of error coram nobis does not supplant the writ of habeas corpus. *Blowe*v. *Peyton,*208 Va. 68, 74, 155 S.E.2d 351 (1967).

In this case, Petitioner alleges ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. A writ of error coram nobis may not be used where the error could be-corrected by other statutory proceeding. *See Dobie,*198 Va. at 768. Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel should be asserted in a habeas corpus proceeding.1
      *See*Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-654 *138(Michie 2003); *see also John v. Commonwealth,*259 Va. 654, 529 S.E.2d 769 (2000). Therefore, the Petitioner’s Petition for a Writ of Error Coram Nobis is denied.

It may well be that the time for filing a habeas corpus petition has long expired and, indeed, had expired at the time the instant petition was filed. Even if that is the case, *138however, it does not confer upon this Court the authority to hear an ineffective assistance of counsel claim in the context of a petition for a writ of error coram nobis.
F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT Sep tember 2 1, 2005 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN THCIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 04- 1168 1 Non-Argum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 3- 23 19 5- CV-UUB RUEL D. L ATOJA, Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant, ve rs us CARNIVAL CORPORATION, d. b. a. Carn iva l C ru ise L ine s I nc or por at ed , De fendant-Appellee.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (S ep te m be r 21, 200 5) Be fo re A N D E RS O N , BL A CK

and C A RN E S, Ci rc uit

Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:2

As t he appellant , Ru el D . L atoja, candidl y concedes, his pos iti on i n th is ap pe ali s sq

uar el y fo r ecl os ed

b y ou r d eci si on ear l i er thi s ye ar i n B aut i st a v . S t ar C r uis es, 396 F . 3d 1 289 (11th C ir . 200 5). T her e is n o m ater ial d ist incti on b e tw e e nth e tw o c a s e s . L at o j as e e k s o n l yt o p re s e rv e h i s ab i l i tyt o s e e k c e rt i o rari r eview in the U nit ed S tates S upr eme C our t, and he has don e that. A F F I RMED .
#### Beverly A. BEUTER, an individual, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. CANYON STATE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC., an Arizona corporation; Ronald Wilson, an individual, Defendants—Appellants, and John Does, I-V; Jane Does, I-V, Defendants.

No. 05-16840.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 17, 2007.*

Filed Dec. 19, 2007.

Deepak Gupta, Esq., Public Citizen Litigation Group, Washington, DC, Richard N. Groves, Law Offices, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

[Ret.] Jeanne L. Zimmer, Esq., Joseph R. Zamora, Esq., Stephen H. Turner, Esq., Carlson, Messer & Turner LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Mark D. Fullerton, Esq., Martin Hart *&*Fullerton, Mesa, AZ, for Defendants-Appellants.

Before: ROTH **, THOMAS, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

**

 The Honorable Jane Richards Roth, United States Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit, silting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

Canyon State Professional Services, Inc. and Ronald Wilson appeal the district *15court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Beverly A. Beuter and denial of summary judgment in favor of Canyon State and Wilson. Canyon State and Wilson attempted to collect legal fees from Beuter, on behalf of a creditor, in excess of the amount to which the creditor was legally entitled. The district court held that their actions violated §§ 1692e and 1692f of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1692. Without contesting the fact that the creditor was not legally entitled to the extra fees, Canyon State and Wilson argue that the district court erred in granting summary judgment because §§ 1692e and 1692f of the FDCPA both require knowledge or intent and the record below did not establish that Canyon State and Wilson acted with either knowledge or intent.

However, we recently decided *Clark v. Capital Credit Services,*460 F.3d 1162, 1175-76 (9th Cir.2006), which holds that the FDCPA imposes strict liability on debt collectors. Under *Clark,*Canyon State and Wilson are liable for even unintentional violations of the FDCPA. Because Canyon State and Wilson did not raise the “bona fide error” affirmative defense provided under § 1692k(c) of the FDCPA and do not contest the fact that their actions constituted “unintentional” violations of §§ 1692e and 1692f, the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Beuter was entirely proper.

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION
OF PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 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
(the "Report") of Digerati Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending January 31,
2014, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Arthur L. Smith, President and Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to 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 Exchange
Act of 1934; and                     
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |    |                                                                                                                                           
| | 2) | the information in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.



|By | /s/ Arthur L. Smith     | 
|-- | ----------------------- | 
|   | Arthur L. Smith         | 
|   | President and           | 
|   | Chief Executive Officer | 
|   | May 5, 2015             |
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 53 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

<DOC>
114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. CON. RES. 53

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That, in the enrollment of the bill H.R. 5325, the Clerk of the House 
of Representatives shall make the following correction to the title so 
as to read: ``Making continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2017, 
and for other purposes.''.

            Passed the Senate September 28, 2016.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
114th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                            S. CON. RES. 53

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

     Directing the Clerk of the House of Representatives to make a 
               correction in the enrollment of H.R. 5325.
```
Warrant Amendment



 Exhibit 4.8 
 AMENDMENT TO WARRANT TO PURCHASE STOCK 
 This Amendment to Warrant to Purchase Stock (this
“Amendment”) is dated as of December 29, 2011 by and between SVB Financial Group (“Holder”) and Luca Technologies, Inc. (“Company”). 

Recitals. 
  

	 	A.	Company issued a Warrant to Purchase Stock dated as of April 30, 2008 to Silicon Valley Bank (the “Warrant”). Silicon Valley Bank
transferred the Warrant to Holder. Holder and Company executed a Warrant Amendment dated as of June 28, 2011. 

  

	 	B.	In connection with the execution of an Amended and Restated Loan and Security Agreement of even date between Company and Silicon Valley Bank, Company and Holder have
agreed to reduce the Warrant Price, as defined in the Warrant. 

 Now, Therefore, Company and Holder agree as follows: 

1. Notwithstanding any other provisions of the Warrant, the reference to “$5.36” in the Warrant is amended to read
“$1.75”. Holder and Company confirm that the number of Shares that may be acquired under the Warrant as of the date hereof, is 13,992. 
 2. Except as amended hereby, the Warrant remains in full force and effect. This Amendment may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, and both of which shall
constitute one instrument. 
  

			
	LUCA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Michael Sabol

	Name:	 	Michael Sabol
	Title:	 	Chief Accounting Officer
	
	SVB FINANCIAL GROUP
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Scott Newman

	Name:	 	Scott Newman
	Title:	 	Portfolio Manager



  
 1