alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 4.7


    
      

      

    

    Exhibit
      4.7

    
 

    CONVERSION
      AGREEMENT

    


    This
      Agreement executed on March
      12, 2007
      is made
      by and between Cobalis
      Corp.,
      a
      Nevada corporation (the “Company”) with its principal place of business located
      at 2445 McCabe Way, Suite 150, Irvine CA 92614 and Catherine
      M. Rodriguez (the “Consultant”),
      with a
      principal place of business located at 1320 South Dixie Highway, Suite 1275,
      Coral Gables, FL 33146.

    


    NOW
      THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals and the covenants and
      obligations set forth below and for other good and valuable consideration,
      the
      receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree
      as
      follows:

    


    Consulting
      Fees Conversion:
      The
      Consultant has rendered litigation legal services to the Company continuously
      since June 2006, with a balance due of $22,461 (twenty-two thousand four hundred
      sixty-one) as of March 1, 2007. 

    


    The
      Parties hereby agree to convert the full amount due of $22,461 (twenty-two
      thousand four hundred sixty-one) into 22,920 (twenty-two thousand nine hundred
      twenty) fully-paid and non-assessable free trading shares, at the conversion
      rate of $0.98 (closing price of the Company’s stock on March 9, 2007) per share,
      upon the execution of this Agreement. 

    


    Furthermore,
      the Parties agree to convert $27,538 (twenty-seven thousand five hundred
      thirty-eight) of Consultant’s retainer fees for her future legal litigation
      services to the Company into 28,101 (twenty-eight thousand one hundred one)
      fully-paid and non-assessable free trading shares, at the conversion rate of
      $0.98 (closing price of the Company’s stock on March 9, 2007) per share, upon
      the execution of this Agreement and submission of applicable invoice(s) for
      the
      actual subsequent services.

    


    The
      Company agrees to take immediate steps to file S-8 registration with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission in order to fulfill its obligation to the
      Consultant.

    


    IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the
      date
      first written above.

    


        

    
      	The Company (Cobalis,
              Corp.)	 	 	The Consultant (Catherine M.
              Rodriguez)
	 	 	 	 
	/s/ Chaslav
              Radovich	 	 	/s/ 
	
              
                
Chaslav
                Radovich

            	 	 	
              
Catherine
              M. Rodriguez
	
              President 

            	 	 	 


    

     

     

     

    1
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3346 

To amend the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 to permit the sharing of 

confidential supervisory information with foreign auditor oversight bodies. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 27, 2009 

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts (for himself and Mr. KANJORSKI) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To amend the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 to permit the 

sharing of confidential supervisory information with foreign auditor oversight bodies. 

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

3 SECTION 1. AUTHORITY TO SHARE CERTAIN INFORMA4 TION. 

5 (a) DEFINITION.—Section 2(a) of the Sarbanes6 Oxley Act of 2002 (15 U.S.C. 7201(a)) is amended by 

7 inserting after paragraph (16) the following: 

8 ‘‘(17) FOREIGN AUDITOR OVERSIGHT AUTHOR9 ITY.—The term ‘foreign auditor oversight authority’ 

10 means any governmental body or other entity emVerDate Nov 24 2008 01:54 Jul 28, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3346.IH H3346

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3346 IH

1 powered by a foreign government to conduct inspec2 tions of public accounting firms or otherwise to ad3 minister or enforce laws related to the regulation of 

4 public accounting firms.’’. 

5 (b) AVAILABILITY TO SHARE INFORMATION.—Sec6 tion 105(b)(5) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (15 

7 U.S.C. 7215(b)(5)) is amended by adding at the end the 

8 following: 

9 ‘‘(C) AVAILABILITY TO FOREIGN OVER10 SIGHT AUTHORITIES.—When in the Board’s 

11 discretion it is necessary to accomplish the pur12 poses of this Act or to protect investors, and 

13 without the loss of its status as confidential and 

14 privileged in the hands of the Board, all infor15 mation referred to in subparagraph (A) that re16 lates to a public accounting firm within the in17 spection authority, or other regulatory or law 

18 enforcement jurisdiction, of a foreign auditor 

19 oversight authority may be made available to 

20 the foreign auditor oversight authority if the 

21 foreign auditor oversight authority provides 

22 such assurances of confidentiality as the Board 

23 determines appropriate.’’. 

24 (c) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 

25 105(b)(5)(A) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (15 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 3346 IH

1 U.S.C. 7215(b)(5)(A)) is amended by striking ‘‘subpara2 graph (B)’’ and inserting ‘‘subparagraphs (B) and (C)’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

The
undersigned, Raymond Calvert, the Vice President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer, of Northstar Neuroscience, Inc. (the Company), pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, hereby certifies:



| | (i) | the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2006 of the Company (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | ---- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |  |  |                           |  |                                                      
|-------------------- |  |  |  | ------------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 19, 2007 |  |  |  | /s/    Raymond N. Calvert
|                     |  |  |  |                           |  | Raymond N. Calvert                                   
|                     |  |  |  |                           |  | Vice President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and
is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Alarion Financial Services, Inc. (the Company), on Form 10-KSB for the
period ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Matthew Ivers, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as added by
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. | To my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for
the period covered by the Report.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |     |  |                                       
|-------------------- |  | --- |  | --------------------------------------
|Date: March 27, 2008 |  | By: |  | /s/ Matthew Ivers                     
|                     |  |     |  | Matthew Ivers, Chief Financial Officer
[No. 68454-0-I.

Division One.

November 5, 2012.]

#### Jonathan J. Arras, *Respondent,*v. Laura G. McCabe, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 09-3-04793-0, Joan E. DuBuque, J., entered March 5,2012. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per

Cox, J.,

concurred in by Appelwick and Schindler, JJ.
#### In The Matter of: CASTLETON PLAZA, LP, Debtor-Appellant.

No. 14-1735.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Submitted June 17, 2014.*

Decided June 23, 2014.

Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied July 22, 2014.**

*562Paul T. Deignan, Attorney, Taft Stettini-us *&*Hollister LLP, Indianapolis, IN, for Debtor-Appellant.

Alan K. Mills, Attorney, Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Indianapolis, IN, for Ap-pellee.

Before JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge, FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge, ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge.

*

This successive appeal has been submitted to the original panel under Operating Procedure 6(b). After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a); Cir. R. 34(f).

**

 Judge Tinder did not participate in the consideration of this petition.

Order

Our first decision in this case held that “[a]n impaired lender who objects to *any*plan that leaves insiders holding equity is entitled to the benefit of competition.” *In re Castleton Plaza, LP,*707 F.3d 821, 824 (7th Cir.2013). We remanded with the expectation that Castleton Plaza (the debt- or) would propose a plan that either eliminated the insiders’ equity interest or allowed competition.

Castleton proposed new plans, but all of them retained an equity stake for insiders and omitted any opportunity for competition. The bankruptcy judge disallowed all of these plans, ruling that they failed to comply with this court’s mandate. Given one final opportunity to propose a plan that either removed the insiders’ interest or allowed competition, Castleton refused. The bankruptcy court dismissed the proceeding, and the debtor has appealed.

It contends that competition is unnecessary because EL-SNPR, the secured lender, will be paid in full and is not “impaired”. The problem with that argument was noted in our first opinion. All of Castleton’s proposed plans materially change the terms of the loan, deferring payment for as long as 30 years (so that if the real estate market declines during that time the lender will not be paid), reduce the rate of interest, and eliminate several security features of the transaction. That is not a promise of full repayment. EL-SNPR is impaired under the proposed plans.

The bankruptcy court properly implemented this court’s decision. The bankruptcy is over, and the lender can foreclose in the ordinary course. If, as debtor maintains, the collateral is worth more than the loan, then it can find another source of capital and outbid EL-SNPR at the auction.

Affirmed
1 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. -1- United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED July 29, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_________________________ No. 03-51321 SUMMARY CALENDAR

_________________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. ESTHER C. HUTCHINSON,

Defendant - Appellant;

______________________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Western District of Texas (P-03-CR-176-ALL)

______________________________________________________________________________ Before REYNALDO G. GARZA, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges. REYNALDO G. GARZA, Circuit Judge: 1 In this appeal, we review Esther Hutchinson’s conviction for possession and aiding and abetting the possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute. Hutchinson argues that the evidence that she was aware of the marijuana found hidden in her van was insufficient to support her conviction. We review Hutchinson’s claim of insufficient evidence for whether, viewing all of the-2-

evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, a reasonable trier of fact could have found that the evidence establishes the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Villarreal , 324 F.3d 319, 322 (5 th Cir. 2003). We find that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict. Hutchinson was noticeably pre-occupied with the drug-detecting dog used by the border patrol agents. She offered several inconsistent accounts of and reasons for her trip to Mexico. Agents testified that Hutchinson did not seem surprised or upset when they told her they had found marijuana in her van. Finally, Hutchinson then refused to tell the agents who had arranged for her to borrow the van. Thus, a jury could reasonably conclude that Hutchinson was aware of the marijuana hidden in the van she was driving. Id. For the foregoing reasons, the conviction is AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     PROFESSIONAL LEASE MANAGEMENT INCOME FUND I LLC
</LEGEND>
<CIK>            0000928956
<NAME>           Professional Lease Management Income Fund I LLC
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         12,104
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  2,331
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (48)
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         92,921
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (44,197)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 71,683
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0
<BONDS>                                        22,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     43,670
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   71,683
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               27,988
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               21,163
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               (5)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             1,833
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                4,821
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            4,821
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   4,821
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0.62
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.62



</TABLE>
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 6054** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. ERICKA L. FLOOD, a/k/a Ericka Lomick , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Charlotte
. Max O. Cogburn, Jr. , District Judge. ( 3:10

- cr - 00124

- MOC

- 2; 3:12

- cv - 00186

- MOC )

Submitted : May 8, 2013 Decided: May 13, 2013

Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN , Circuit Judges.

Remanded by un published per curiam opinion
. Ericka L. Flood, Appellant Pro Se. Kurt William Meyers , Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precede nt in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Ericka L. Flood seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting the Government’s motion for summary judgment and dismissing her 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) motion. Although the docketed notice of appeal was r eceived well outside the e xpiration of the appeal period, Flood indicates that she previously deliver ed her notice of appeal to prison officials on August 15, 2012, only seven days after the district court entered its order and well within the sixty

- day ap peal period. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B). Because Flood is incarcerated, the notice is considered filed as of the date it was properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266 (1988). The record does not conclusively reveal when Flood delivered the notice of appeal to prison officials for mailing. Accordingly, we remand the case for the limited purpose of allowing the district court to obtain this information from the parties and to d etermine whether the filing was timely under Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1) and Houston v. Lack . The record, as supplemented, will then be returned to this court for further consideration.

REMANDED
EX-10.6



 





Exhibit 10-6




DESCRIPTION OF 2006 COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENTS

WITH LUBIN, DELANO & COMPANY




     During 2006, Lexington Precision Corporation (the “Company”) compensated Michael A. Lubin, its
Chairman of the Board, and Warren Delano, its President, indirectly through payments to Lubin,
Delano & Company, an investment banking firm of which they are the only partners. These
compensation arrangements provided for payment to Lubin, Delano & Company of a basic fee of
$700,000, and provided for a possible incentive fee based upon attaining an operating profit target
for the Company and possible transaction fees as might be agreed upon by
the Company and Lubin, Delano & Company in connection with acquisitions, divestitures, financings
and other similar transactions.
Exhibit 32.2

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of Emergency Filtration Products, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending March 31, 2005, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Steve M. Hanni, Principal Financial 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, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

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

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


/s/ Steve M. Hanni
Steve M. Hanni, Principal Financial Officer

Date: May 13, 2005


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature
that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement 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.
1

COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN RE: COPART, INC., COPART OF 

HOUSTON, INC., AND HOUSTON 

COPART SALVAGE AUTO 

AUCTIONS, LP,

 

 Relators.

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-18-00204-CV

AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

IN MANDAMUS

O R D E R

In this original proceeding, Relators are challenging an order entered by the Honorable 

Luis Aguilar, former judge of the 243rd District Court of El Paso County, Texas, on November 

13, 2018, in trial cause number 2017DCV4011, granting the Real Party in Interest’s motion to 

permit pre-arbitration discovery. Judge Aguilar’s term ended on December 31, 2018, and this 

original proceeding remains pending. The Honorable Selena Solis became judge of the 243rd 

District Court on January 1, 2019. 

Rule 7.2(a) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provides for the automatic 

substitution of a public officer’s successor as a party in an original proceeding. See TEX.R.APP.P.

7.2(a). On our own motion, we order that Judge Solis is substituted as the Respondent in this 

original proceeding. The Clerk of the Court is directed to change the records for the case to reflect 

that Judge Solis is substituted as the Respondent. 

Rule 7.2(b) additionally requires an appellate court to abate an original proceeding to allow 
2

the successor to reconsider the original party’s decision. See TEX.R.APP.P. 7.2(b). On our own 

motion, we abate this original proceeding for forty-five days to allow Judge Solis to reconsider the 

order being challenged by Relators in this original proceeding. The stay order entered by this 

Court on November 20, 2018 is lifted for the limited purpose of allowing Judge Solis to reconsider 

the order challenged by Relators. Relators shall provide the Court with a certified or sworn copy 

of any pertinent orders entered by Judge Solis. If necessary, Relators will be provided an 

opportunity to file an amended mandamus petition and appendix.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 12th day of April, 2019.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez and Palafox, JJ.