alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
fsb21007ex10ii_voiceserve.htm


    AMENDMENT
      TO THE INVESTMENT AGREEMENT

     

    This
      Amendment to the Investment Agreement is made as of the ____ day of September
      2007.

     

    BETWEEN

     

    VOICSERVE,
      INC. a Delaware corporation (the “Company”). 

     

    AND

     

    DUTCHESS
      PRIVATE EQUITIES FUND, LTD. (THE “INVESTOR”)

     

    WHEREAS,
      the Company and the Investor desire to amend the Investment Agreement to remove
      language regarding the Company’s right to withdraw that portion of the put that
      is below the Minimum Acceptable Price, as defined within the Investment
      Agreement.

     

    NOW,
      THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION of the mutual covenants contained in this Amendment
      to the Investment Agreement, and for other good and valuable consideration
      the
      receipt and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, the Company and the
      Investor agree as follows:

     

    
      	
              1)  

            	
               Section
                2(C) Company’s Right of Withdrawal shall be
                removed.

            


    

     

    
      	
              2)  

            	
               All
                terms within Section 2 of the Investment Agreement shall be adjusted
                to
                reflect the Appropriate reference
                section.

            


    

     

    
       

      
        	
                3)  

              	
                
                   All
                    other terms of the Investment Agreement shall remain in full
                    force and
                    effect.

                

              


      

       

    

     

    (Signature
      pages to follow)

     

     

     

    
      
        
        

      

      
        
        

        
          

        

      

      
        
        

      

    

     

     

    VOICESERVE,
      INC.;

     

    By:   /s/ 
      Michael Bibelman  
                                 

    Name:
      Michael Bibelman 

    Title:
      Chief Executive Officer

     

    DUTCHESS
      PRIVATE EQUITIES FUND LTD.

     

    By:  /s/Douglas
      Leighton       

    Name:
      Douglas Leighton 

    Title:
      Director
Order filed, July 22, 2016.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-16-00222-CV

____________

OMAR VALDES, Appellant

V.

WHATABURGER, Appellee

On Appeal from the 55th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2015-57179

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due June 15, 2016. The court has not 

received a request to extend time for filing the record. The record has not been 

filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record has not been filed timely, we 

issue the following order.

We order Gina Wilburn, the official court reporter, to file the record in this 

appeal within 30 days of the date of this order. 

PER CURIAM
**EXHIBIT 99.1**

 

 

**Certification of CEO and CFO Pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as Adopted Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Cherokee International, LLC (the “Company”)for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Jeffrey M. Frank, asChief Executive Officer of the Company, and R. Van Ness Holland, Jr., as ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that,to the best of his knowledge:

 

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

 

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

 
| /s/  Jeffrey M. Frank         |
|-------------------------------|
| Name:                         | Jeffrey  M. Frank |
| Title:                        | Chief  Executive Officer |
| Date:                         | November  13, 2002 |
|                          |
| /s/  R. Van Ness Holland, Jr. |
| Name:                         | R.  Van Ness Holland, Jr. |
| Title:                        | Chief  Financial Officer |
| Date:                         | November  13, 2002 |

 

This certificationaccompanies the Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 andshall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, bedeemed filed by the Company for purposes of § 18 of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934, as amended.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

DIVISION ONE

NICHOLAS E. BOONE, and all

others similarly situated,

Petitioner,

CITY OF SEATTLE,

Respondent.

No. 73534-9-1

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

FILED: May 2, 2016

o

I

V?

c/i

CO

o^

3> —'

$1)1" •>t3fT|

rr 3*"'""

CDtn

o—

Verellen, C.J. — In this class action seeking declaratory and other relief, the

superior court ruled that individual class members who seek to challenge the validity of

traffic infractions they voluntarily paid in municipal court must first seek to vacate the

resulting judgments under the rules governing municipal courts. The superior court

reserved other issues that might remain for the class litigation. The parties jointly

agreed to certify the court's ruling for discretionary review under RAP 2.3(b)(4),

including that "immediate review of the order may materially advance the ultimate

termination of the litigation."1 This court granted discretionary review.

The City of Seattle now disputes the jurisdiction of this court because each of the

individual infractions is less than $200. The Court of Appeals is statutorily barred from

reviewing appeals of "civil actions at law for the recovery of money or personal property

1Clerk's Papers (CP) at 781-82. The superior court also entered a CR 54(b)

certification that there is no just cause for delay, but did not enter any supporting

findings of fact. CP at 780, 782.

1
No. 73534-9-1

when the original amount in controversy, or the value of the property does not exceed

the sum of two hundred dollars."2 The parties have provided limited briefing on the

amount in controversy limitation.

Under RAP 2.3(b)(4), "discretionary review may be granted."

Under all of the circumstances, it is not clear what benefits would result from

immediate review. We conclude that review was improvidently granted. This matter is

dismissed.

WE CONCUR:

*7{\ja^ i ^r

2 RCW 2.06.030. The Washington Constitution imposes a similar $200 amount

in controversy threshold on the Washington Supreme Court, but expressly allows the

Supreme Court to consider challenges to municipal fines. Wash. Const, art. IV, § 4;

City of Bremerton v. Spears, 134Wn.2d 141, 152, 949 P.2d 347 (1998).
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov","title":"Negotiation Skills - Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"Dsucg5JYRC\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov\/services\/education-and-outreach\/fmcs-institute\/negotiation-skills\/\">Negotiation Skills<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov\/services\/education-and-outreach\/fmcs-institute\/negotiation-skills\/embed\/#?secret=Dsucg5JYRC\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Negotiation Skills” — Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service\" data-secret=\"Dsucg5JYRC\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/* <![CDATA[ *\/\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n\/* ]]> *\/\n<\/script>\n"}
#### Bruce SWINFORD, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Respondent.

No. 2010-3025.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Dec. 14, 2010.

Jay P. Holland, Joseph, Greenwald & Laake, PA, Greenbelt, Maryland, argued for petitioner. With him on the brief was Puja Gupta.

Jane W. Vanneman, Senior Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for respondent. With her on the brief were Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, and Todd M. Hughes, Deputy Director.

Before LOURIE, CLEVENGER, and MOORE, Circuit Judges.

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is

Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

Eonorabla David 

County Atto:mey 

El F'sso, Texas 

D6ar sir: 

AUSTIN I: 

i’, r 

April 17, 1939 

eatook and ran 

The qumation is whether tha benefit OS thirr 

hti0le plr0ri4145 r0r th6 paptent 0f 0~1~ fifty par wit 

regi6trati0n r6O 3.6 o6rt6l~~fn6t6noO6, applieil ,to tha 

6itUation *hem a &Wr6OXl l-61666 ,-rtaia prOdUOt6 Ot Bi6 

OWR 8Ibd al60 PUl-OhO666 JStOdlXOt6 Of Other tBITAOr6, OoW6ycl 

and tr4lli6&Wrt6 both ~Ob66O6 Q? ~OdUOt6 to his oWlI OUInery and after pTOO666in$ them in turn tranaport6 tttea te 

market. 
Ron. David E. LIulcahy, April 17~, 1929, Fage 2 . 

'~8 do not believe that the stipulation of the 

statute providing for traneportatlon to market or other 

points r0r sale or prooeming permit6 a person, in riret 

operating a commerolal enterprise suoh as a oannery, to 

traneport the produots of such oannery to market in a 

tehlale regietered under Artlole 66756-6a. Nor do m, 

believe it was intended to permit a person to transport 

products purohased tram others, with the aid of the oheapor lloense. 

.wO aFo Or the OphiOIl, thar6fOm, thsat the 

kmfit6 of the Artiolo l 00mao only to a pmmon who truI6- 

pX't6 hi6 OWD pOdUOt6 to Mtk6t Or other @6t6 for 6610
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1997
<CASH>                                          128768
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1738852
<ALLOWANCES>                                     76188
<INVENTORY>                                     795006
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 62486
<PP&E>                                         3742700
<DEPRECIATION>                                 2187210
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 4548541
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2752411
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     399044
<COMMON>                                          1382
<OTHER-SE>                                    (109166)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   4548541
<SALES>                                        4305707
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               4305707
<CGS>                                          3448884
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  3448884
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                666566
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              106053
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  84204
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              84204
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     84204
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.01
        

</TABLE>
CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. §1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Table Trac, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Chad Hoehne, Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. §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 contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.





/s/ Chad
      HoehneChad
      HoehneChief
      Executive Officer and Chief Financial OfficerAugust
      16, 2010
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3049 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3049

   To amend the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 to prohibit a former 
  Member of Congress from making a lobbying contact under such Act on 
    behalf of a client which is a Communist country, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 7, 2021

Mr. Johnson of Louisiana (for himself, Mr. Banks, Mr. Steube, Mr. Weber 
  of Texas, Mr. Roy, and Mrs. Hinson) introduced the following bill; 
          which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 to prohibit a former 
  Member of Congress from making a lobbying contact under such Act on 
    behalf of a client which is a Communist country, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``No Communist Countries Participating 
in Lobbying Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITING LOBBYING CONTACTS BY FORMER MEMBERS OF CONGRESS ON 
              BEHALF OF COMMUNIST COUNTRIES.

    (a) Prohibition.--The Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 
1601 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 5 the following new 
section:

``SEC. 5A. PROHIBITING LOBBYING CONTACTS BY FORMER MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 
              ON BEHALF OF COMMUNIST COUNTRIES.

    ``(a) Prohibition.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
Act, a former Member of Congress may not make a lobbying contact under 
this Act, or any communication which would be a lobbying contact under 
this Act if it were not disclosed under the Foreign Agents Registration 
Act of 1938, as amended (22 U.S.C. 611 et seq.), on behalf of a client 
which, at the time of the lobbying contact or communication, is a 
Communist country or an entity owned or controlled by a Communist 
country.
    ``(b) Penalty.--In addition to any other penalty under this Act, 
any person who violates subsection (a) shall be subject to a fine of 
not more than $25,000 for each such violation.
    ``(c) Definition.--In this section, a `Communist country' means a 
country which is treated as a Communist country under section 620(f) of 
the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2370(f)).''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply with respect to lobbying contacts under the Lobbying Disclosure 
Act of 1995 which are made on or after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 243 (Tuesday, December 18, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 65226]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-31144]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[NAFTA-5247]


Fedders Corporation, Columbia Specialities, Inc., Columbia, 
Tennessee; Notice of Termination of Investigation

    Pursuant to Title V of the North American Free Trade Agreement 
Implementation Act (Pub. L. 103-182) concerning transitional adjustment 
assistance, hereinafter called (NAFTA-TAA), and in accordance with 
section 250(a), subchapter D, Chapter 2, Title II, of the Trade Act of 
1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2273), an investigation was initiated on 
August 20, 2001, in response to a petition filed on behalf of workers 
at Fedders Corporation, Columbia Specialities, Inc., Columbia, 
Tennessee.
    The petitioners requested that the petition for NAFTA-TAA be 
withdrawn. Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve 
no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 29th day of November 2001.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 01-31144 Filed 12-17-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
**Exhibit
      32.1**





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 Score One, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
      10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2007 filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission (the “Report”), we, Hoi-ho Kiu, Chief Executive Officer of the
      Company, and Lai Ming Lau, Chief 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:





(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 results of operations of the Company.








/s/
      Hoi-hu Kiu


Hoi-ho
      Kiu


Chief
      Executive Officer


August
      20, 2007







/s/
      Lai Ming Lau


Lai
      Ming
      Lau


Chief
      Financial Officer


August
      20, 2007
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 6072** 

MICHAEL A. PEACOCK , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v.
FRANK L. PERRY , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh
. Terrence W. Boyle , District Judge. ( 5:15

- hc

- 02035

- BO )

Submitted : May 26 , 2016 Decided: June 1, 2016

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge , and NIEMEYER and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Michael A. Peacock, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Michael A. P eacock seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (A) (2012) . A certificat e of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasona ble jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Peacock has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Peacock’s motion for a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
Monday, March 2, 2015 Contact: John Arnold, Director 

For Immediate Release Office of Public Affairs 

Web site: www.fmcs.gov Phone: (202) 606-8100 

 

FMCS Statement on Tentative Settlement 

Between International Association of Machinists Local 219 

And AllSource Global Management 

WASHINGTON, D.C. —The Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) today 

announced that with the assistance of federal mediators, a tentative settlement has been reached 

between the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAMAW) Local 

219 and AllSource Global Management at Bluegrass Station, south of Lexington, Ky., ending a 

work stoppage that began Oct. 1, 2014. 

A subcontractor for military contractor Lockheed Martin Corporation, AllSource Global 

Management provides supplies to U.S. Army Special Forces units. 

Working under the auspices of FMCS mediators Tammy Poole and Gregg Tipton, the union and 

employer reached a tentative agreement after intense negotiations. 

Director of Mediation Services Peter Cheng commended mediators Tammy Poole and Greg 

Tipton for their efforts in assisting both sides during long and complex bargaining sessions. 

“These were difficult negotiations for both sides,“ Cheng said. “It came down to some hard 

choices, but fortunately, they were able to resolve their differences and come to agreement.” 

The tentative agreement is subject to ratification. As is Agency practice, the FMCS will not 

comment on the substance or content of the agreement or negotiation. 

### 

The Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, created in 1947, is an independent U.S. government 

agency whose mission is to preserve and promote labor-management peace and cooperation. 

Headquartered in Washington, DC, with 10 district offices and more than 60 field offices, the agency 

provides mediation and conflict resolution services to industry, government agencies and communities. 

NEWS RELEASE

FEDERAL MEDIATION AND CONCILIATION SERVICE 

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20427