alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.22






Exhibit 10.22




AMENDMENT TO PROMISSORY NOTE




This Amendment to the Promissory Note, originally dated September 1, 2010 (the “Note”) is
entered into as of the 11th day of February, 2011, by and between CMS Acquisition, LLC
(“CMS”) and CleanTech Biofuels, Inc. (“CTB”).



WHEREAS, the Note is secured by the CTB owned U.S. Patent No. 6,306,248 pursuant to a Security
Agreement dated as of September 1, 2010, between CMS and CTB (the “Security Agreement”);



WHEREAS, to date no payments of principal, interest or otherwise have been made by CTB on the
Note; and




WHEREAS, the parties wish to amend the terms of the Note as set forth below.



NOW THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is
hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:




	1.	 	The Maturity Date, as defined in the Note, shall be changed to May 15, 2011 from February 28,
2011.






	2.	 	Upon execution of this Amendment, CTB shall pay immediately available funds to CMS in the
amount of $25,000 for payment against the Note as follows: (1) all accrued but unpaid interest
to date and (2) principal.






	3.	 	All remaining terms and conditions of the Note and Security Agreement shall continue in full
force and effect.





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, CTB and CMS have caused this Amendment to the Note to be executed and
delivered by their duly authorized officers as of the day and year set forth above.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	CLEANTECH BIOFUELS, INC.

 	 
	 	By:  	_______________________________
 	 
	 	 	Name:  	 	 
	 	 	Title:  	 	 
	 



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	CMS Acquisition, LLC

 	 
	 	By:  	_______________________________
 	 
	 	 	Name:  	 	 
	 	 	Title:  	 	 
	 






4
**Exhibit8**

 

Controlled Entities

Incorporated in Nature of Business

All controlled entities are 100% owned unlessotherwise noted.

The material controlled entities of the Group are:

**Australia and New ZealandBanking Group Limited**Australia Banking

**Alliance Holdings Limited**AustraliaInvestment

**ANZ Capel Court Limited**AustraliaInvestment Banking

**ANZ Capital Funding Pty Ltd**Australia Funding

**ANZ Capital Hedging Pty Ltd**Australia Hedging

**ANZCover Insurance Pty Ltd**AustraliaSelf-Insurance

**ANZ Executors & TrusteeCompany Limited**Australia Trustee/Nominee

**ANZ Financial Products PtyLtd**Australia Investment

**ANZ Funds Pty Ltd**Australia HoldingCompany

ANZ Holdings (New Zealand) Limited* New ZealandHolding Company

EFTPOS New Zealand Limited* New Zealand EftposService Provider

ANZ Banking Group (New Zealand) Limited* NewZealand Banking

Tui Securities Limited* New Zealand Investment

UDC Finance Limited* New Zealand Finance

Endeavour Finance Limited* New Zealand Finance

Tui Endeavour Limited* New Zealand Finance

ANZ International Private Limited* SingaporeFinance

ANZ Singapore Limited* Singapore Merchant Banking

Minerva Holdings Limited* England Holding Company

ANZEF Limited* England Export Finance

**ANZ Holdings Pty Ltd**Australia PropertyOwner

**ANZ Investment Holdings PtyLtd**Australia Investment

530 Collins Street Property Trust AustraliaInvestment Activities

**ANZ Lenders MortgageInsurance Pty Limited**Australia Mortgage Insurance

**ANZ Orchard Investments PtyLtd**Australia Investment

**ANZ Properties (Australia)Pty Ltd**Australia Property Owner

**ANZ Securities (Holdings)Limited**Australia Holding Company

**Australia and New ZealandBanking Group (PNG) Limited***Papua New Guinea Banking

**Esanda Finance CorporationLimited**Australia General Finance

Fleet Partners Pty Limited Australia Finance

**NMRSB Pty Ltd**AustraliaInvestment

**PT ANZ Panin Bank*(1)**Indonesia Banking

**US Distribution Trust I**USA Investment

**US Distribution Trust II**USA Investment

 

----

* Audited by overseas KPMG firms

(1) Outside equity interests hold ordinary sharesor units in the controlled entities listed above as follows:

PT ANZ Panin Bank – 7,500 IDR 1M shares (15%)(2002: 7,500 IDR 1M shares (15%))

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000858346
<NAME> WEST COAST REALTY INVESTORS, INC.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       2,017,194
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  247,948
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,075,524
<PP&E>                                      21,933,151
<DEPRECIATION>                               (814,948)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              23,571,838
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          588,154
<BONDS>                                     10,079,793
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  12,904,891
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                23,571,838
<SALES>                                      2,377,530
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,474,627
<CGS>                                          888,013
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  888,013
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             880,978
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                705,636
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   705,636
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .49
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .49


</TABLE>
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2815 

To revise the Federal charter for the Blue Star Mothers of America, Inc., 

to reflect a change in eligibility requirements for membership. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

AUGUST 9, 2011 

Mr. TIPTON (for himself, Mr. STARK, Mr. TOWNS, Mr. UPTON, Mr. BACHUS, 

Mr. CALVERT, Mr. BLUMENAUER, Ms. DEGETTE, Mr. HINOJOSA, Mr. 

MCGOVERN, Mr. REYES, Mr. HOLT, Mr. HONDA, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. RYAN of Ohio, Mrs. BACHMANN, Ms. RICHARDSON, Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia, Mr. POLIS, Mr. HANNA, Mr. 

HULTGREN, Mr. WEST, and Ms. BORDALLO) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To revise the Federal charter for the Blue Star Mothers 

of America, Inc., to reflect a change in eligibility requirements for membership. 

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

3 SECTION 1. MODIFICATION OF ELIGIBILITY REQUIRE4 MENTS FOR MEMBERSHIP IN BLUE STAR 

5 MOTHERS OF AMERICA, INC. 

6 Section 30504 of title 36, United States Code, is 

7 amended— 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2815 IH

1 (1) in paragraph (1)— 

2 (A) by striking the text preceding subpara3 graph (A) and inserting ‘‘she is a mother 

4 (meaning a woman who filled the role of birth 

5 mother, adoptive mother, stepmother, foster6 mother, grandmother, or legal guardian) of a 

7 person who—’’; and 

8 (B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ‘‘in 

9 World War II or the Korean hostilities’’; and 

10 (2) in paragraph (2), by inserting ‘‘or is a 

11 United States citizen living outside the United 

12 States’’ before the period at the end. 

Æ 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           2,534
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   18,923
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                24,964
<PP&E>                                          46,012
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,625)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  80,321
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           15,275
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             7
<OTHER-SE>                                      43,600
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    80,321
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                46,053
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   42,386
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 356
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,433
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,236
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,197
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,197
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.31
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-1625

JESSIE B. HAYES,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

WILLIAM J. HENDERSON, Postmaster General;

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.

(CA-00-2027-2-18AJ)

Submitted: August 9, 2001 Decided: August 14, 2001

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jessie B. Hayes, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Parkwood Griffith, Jr.,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina,

for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Jessie B. Hayes appeals the district court’s order dismissing

her civil action alleging employment discrimination. We have

reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the

recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. See Hayes v. Henderson, No. CA-00-2027-2-18AJ (D.S.C. filed

Apr. 5, 2000; entered Apr. 6, 2001). 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<CIK> 0001015610
<NAME> GOLD BANC CORPORATION, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          39,935
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           3,389
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                17,866
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                 4,873
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    257,593
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                              25
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                25
<LOANS>                                        868,967
<ALLOWANCE>                                     11,530
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,278,662
<DEPOSITS>                                     967,295
<SHORT-TERM>                                    81,801
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             10,336
<LONG-TERM>                                    128,940
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        17,182
<OTHER-SE>                                      73,108
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               1,278,662
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 52,616
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               10,315
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 2,284
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                65,215
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              28,558
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              35,019
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           30,196
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                     1301
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 170
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 26,246
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 15,137
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      15,137
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    10,192
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.59
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.59
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.44
<LOANS-NON>                                      2,678
<LOANS-PAST>                                     1,367
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                10,752
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    1,181
<RECOVERIES>                                       386
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               11,530
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            10,955
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
```

[United States Government Policy and Supporting Positions (Plum Book), 1996]
[Independent Agencies and Government Corporations]
[National Capital Planning Commission]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

The Plum Book (United States Government Policy
        and Supporting Positions): 1996 EditionBRANCH: EXECUTIVE NATIONAL CAPITAL PLANNING COMMISSIONLocationPosition TitleName of IncumbentPay PlanType of Appt.Level Grade or PayTenureExpiresWashington, DCChairmanHarvey B. GanttEXPA1006 years01/01/1999Washington, DCCommission MemberRobert A. GainesEXPA1006 years01/01/1997Washington, DCCommission MemberMargaret G. VanderhyeEXPA1006 years01/01/2001Washington, DCCommission MemberArrington L. DixonEXXS1004 years01/02/1999Washington, DCCommission MemberPatricia S. ElwoodEXXS1004 years01/02/1999
```
#### LEETE v. NONESUCH FIBRE CO. et al.

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

September 17, 1895.)

Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Delaware.

J. H. Hoffecker, Jr., for appellant

Dismissed, on motion of counsel for appellant, at costs of'appellant.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2861 

To restore the jurisdiction of the Consumer Product Safety Commission 

over amusement park rides which are at a fixed site, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 7, 2011 

Mr. MARKEY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To restore the jurisdiction of the Consumer Product Safety 

Commission over amusement park rides which are at 

a fixed site, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘National Amusement 

5 Park Ride Safety Act of 2011’’. 

6 SEC. 2. JURISDICTION OVER FIXED SITE AMUSEMENT 

7 RIDES. 

8 Section 3(a)(1) of the Consumer Product Safety Act 

9 (15 U.S.C. 2052(a)(1)) is amended by striking ‘‘, and 

10 which is not permanently fixed to a site. Such term does 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2861 IH

1 not include such a device which is permanently fixed to 

2 a site.’’ and inserting a period. 

3 SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

4 There are authorized to be appropriated to the Con5 sumer Product Safety Commission $500,000 for each fis6 cal year to enable the Commission to carry out the Con7 sumer Product Safety Act as amended by this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D17-2445

_____________________________

STEVE STEPHENS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Gadsden County.

Barbara K. Hobbs, Judge.

June 19, 2018

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, BILBREY, and KELSEY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

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

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Steve Stephens, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Heather Flanagan Ross, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Exhibit 32   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 Dexterity Surgical, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report) I, Randall K. Boatright, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:  1.   The Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2005 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/   Randall K. Boatright _____________________________ Randall K. Boatright Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer April 13, 2007
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11



                              The Leap Group, Inc.



             STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF PER-SHARE EARNINGS

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                  Three Months Ended April 30,
                                                  ----------------------------
                                                      1996           1997
                                                      ----           ----
<S>                                                <C>           <C>
  Weighted average of common
   shares outstanding                               9,600,000     13,609,778

  Effect of options granted within one
   year prior to the offering, based on
   the treasury stock method                          588,109        342,399
                                                   ----------    -----------

  Total weighted average of common
   shares outstanding                              10,188,109     13,952,177

  Net income (loss)                                $ (184,382)   $(1,150,108)

  Net income (loss)
   per common share                                    $(0.02)        $(0.08)
</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2



     Certification pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



      I, Joseph W. Pooler, Jr., the Senior Vice President of Finance of Pegasus
Satellite Communications, Inc., hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Form 10-Q of Pegasus Satellite
Communications, Inc. for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2003 (the "June 3,
2003 Form 10-Q"), which this certification accompanies, fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and information contained in the June 30, 2003 Form
10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of Pegasus Satellite Communications, Inc.

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

Dated:  August 14, 2003


                                   /s/ Joseph W. Pooler, Jr.
                                   -----------------------------------
                                   Joseph W. Pooler, Jr.
#### Ernest Afam OFOEDU, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ST. FRANCIS HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL CENTER, Catherine Szenczy and Carol Schuster, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 06-5546-cv.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

July 2, 2008.

*931Anthony C. Emengo, Williamsburg, N.Y., for Appellant.

James F. Shea, Jackson Lewis LLP, Hartford, Conn., for Appellees.

PRESENT: Hon. PIERRE N. LEVAL, Hon. GUIDO CALABRESI, Hon. ROSEMARY S. POOLER, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-Appellant Ernest Ofoedu appeals (1) a judgment entered on September 14, 2006 in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Dorsey, /.), which dismissed Ofoedu’s Title VII and § 1981 claims and awarded summary judgment to Defendants-Appellees; and (2) a November 6, 2006 decision of the district court, granting plaintiffs motion for reconsideration but adhering to the prior decision. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts of the case and its procedural history.

Ofoedu failed to file a timely notice of appeal with respect to the district court’s original award of summary judgment, and his motion for reconsideration was filed six minutes too late to toll that deadline pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4)(A)(vi). Accordingly, to the extent that Ofoedu’s brief challenges the district court’s initial decision, we have no jurisdiction to consider his arguments. *Sorensen v. City of New York,*413 F.3d 292, 295 (2d Cir.2005); *see also United States v. Frias,*521 F.3d 229, 232-33 (2d Cir.2008) (explaining that Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a), which governs the time to appeal in a civil case, is jurisdictional). It matters not whether the late filing was due to the negligence of counsel, or to ordinary mis*932adventure. We note, in passing, that Ofoedu’s arguments with respect to the initial award of summary judgment appear to lack merit.

Ofoedu did submit a timely notice of appeal from the district court’s ruling on the motion for reconsideration. We review that decision for abuse of discretion. *Devlin v. Transp. Comm’ns Int’l Union,*175 F.3d 121, 131-32 (2d Cir.1999). We find no abuse of discretion in Judge Dorsey’s adherence to his previous conclusion on the merits of the case. In particular, the district court acted well within its discretion when it found that its error with respect to Ofoedu’s termination date did not affect the ultimate result. Judge Dorsey properly relied on his prior determination that Ofoedu failed to adduce any evidence that his dismissal was inspired by a retaliatory motive.

The appeal is DISMISSED IN PART, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.