alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 100 (Tuesday, May 23, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33325-33326]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12847]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Consumer Advisory Council; Notice of Meeting of Consumer Advisory 
Council

    The Consumer Advisory Council will meet on Thursday, June 22, 2000. 
The meeting, which will be open to public observation, will take place 
at the Federal Reserve Board's offices in Washington, DC., in Dining 
Room E of the Martin Building (Terrace level). The meeting will begin 
at 8:45 a.m. and is expected to conclude at 1 p.m. The Martin Building 
is located on C Street, Northwest, between 20th and 21st Streets.
    The Council's function is to advise the Board on the exercise of 
the Board's responsibilities under the Consumer Credit Protection Act 
and on other

[[Page 33326]]

matters on which the Board seeks its advice. Time permitting, the 
Council will discuss the following topics:

Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act CRA Sunshine Regulation
    Discussion of the proposal regarding disclosure of CRA agreements 
between financial institutions and community groups.
Credit Card Disclosures in Solicitations
    Discussion of the adequacy of existing disclosures and possible 
alternatives.
Predatory Lending
    Discussion of issues regarding abusive lending practices.
Committee Reports
    Council committees will report on their work.

    Other matters previously considered by the Council or initiated by 
Council members also may be discussed.
    Persons wishing to submit views to the Council regarding any of the 
above topics may do so by sending written statements to Ann Bistay, 
Secretary of the Consumer Advisory Council, Division of Consumer and 
Community Affairs, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 
Washington, DC 20551. Information about this meeting may be obtained 
from Ms. Bistay, 202-452-6470. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf 
(TDD) users may contact Diane Jenkins, 202-452-3544.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 17, 2000.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 00-12847 Filed 5-22-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
#### § 38.89 When the recipient fails or refuses to take the corrective action listed in the Initial Determination.

Under such circumstances, following a complaint investigation or compliance review, the Department may take the actions described in § 38.95.
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2012-1223 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2012-NM-154-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

 Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
ex10-92.htm


 

Exhibit 10.92

 

SECURED CONVERTIBLE PROMISSORY NOTE

 

AMENDMENT I

 

 

This First Amendment (the "Amendment”) is to amend the following terms and conditions of the Secured Convertible Promissory Note dated August 13, 2013, (the “Note”) by and between Location Based Technologies, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), and Greggory Haugen (the “Lender”) (each a, “Party” both are, “Parties”).

 

WHEREAS, the Company is a publicly-held corporation with its common stock traded on the OTC Market under the symbol LBAS; and

 

WHEREAS, on August 13, 2013, the Company entered into a Secured Convertible Promissory Note with the Lender (as the same may from time to time be further amended, modified, supplemented or restated), in which the Lender may invest capital in the Company of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) in the form of secured convertible debt;

 

WHEREAS, the Parties desire to amend the Note:

 

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and the mutual covenants and agreements of the services rendered by the Lender to the Company, the following terms and conditions hereinafter set forth shall apply, and the parties hereto covenant and agree as follows:

 

 

Subsection (a) of Section 1 titled, “Terms of Repayment and Conversion”, shall be and is hereby amended as follows:

 

a.     Upon the execution and delivery of this Note, the Holder shall disburse to the Borrower the sum of $1,000,000; the amount actually received by the Borrower shall be the principal amount. All amounts outstanding under this Note shall mature and become due and payable on September 30, 2015 (the "Maturity Date"), subject to any prior payment required by this Note. At the Maturity Date, or during any time after April 15, 2015, the Lender shall have the right, but not the obligation, to convert this Note into shares of the Company’s common stock at a price equal to the lower of of $0.20 per share or 50% of the closing stock price on the day after the Company is given notice of the conversion by the Lender (the “Conversion Price”). 

 

 

All other terms and conditions of the Note shall remain unchanged.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

{Signature Page to Follow}

 


 

1 




 


 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this amendment to the Note has been executed this 27th day of February, 2015.

 

Borrower:

 

 

LOCATION BASED TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

 

 

 

By: ________________________________

            David M. Morse, CEO          

 

 

Date: February 27, 2015

 

Lender:

 

 Greggory Haugen

 

 

By: _____________________________

  Greggory S. Haugen     

 

Date:     February 27, 2015

 

 

2
#### § 4206.2 Definitions.

The following are defined in § 4001.2 of this chapter: Code, employer, ERISA, multiemployer plan, PBGC, plan, and plan year.

In addition, for purposes of this part:

*Complete withdrawal* means a complete withdrawal as described in section 4203 of ERISA.

*Partial withdrawal* means a partial withdrawal as described in section 4205 of ERISA.

*Unfunded vested benefits* means, as described in section 4213(c) of ERISA, the amount by which the value of nonforfeitable benefits under the plan exceeds the value of the assets of the plan.

[61 FR 34086, July 1, 1996, as amended at 86 FR 1270, Jan. 8, 2021]
----

Euro exchange rates (1)

13 July 2004

(2004/C 181/02)

1 euro= 

----

(1)

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

----
[No. 20934-2-III.

Division Three.

December 10, 2002.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Joseph Allen Gariepy, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Spokane County, No. 00-1-02596-4, Robert D. Austin, J., entered February 22, 2002. *Affirmed in part*and *reversed in part*by unpublished opinion per Brown, C.J., concurred in by Kurtz and Kato, JJ.
----

Euro exchange rates (1)

 29 September 2004

(2004/C 243/01)

1 euro= 

----

(1)

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

----
###### Editorial Note on Part 4

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 4 appear at 61 FR 19984, May 3, 1996.

#### § 4.121 Contracts for individual services.

The Act, in paragraph (6) of section 7, exempts from its provisions “any employment contract providing for direct services to a Federal agency by an individual or individuals.” This exemption, which applies only to an “employment contract” for “direct services,” makes it clear that the Act's application to Federal contracts for services is intended to be limited to service contracts entered into with independent contractors. If a contract to furnish services (to be performed by a service employee as defined in the Act) provides that they will be furnished directly to the Federal agency by the individual under conditions or circumstances which will make him an employee of the agency in providing the contract service, the exemption applies and the contract will not be subject to the Act's provisions. The exemption does not exclude from the Act any contract for services of the kind performed by service employees which is entered into with an independent contractor whose individual services will be used in performing the contract, but as noted earlier in § 4.113, such a contract would be outside the general coverage of the Act if only the contractor's individual services would be furnished and no service employee would in any event be used in its performance.
III 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 104 

Supporting ‘‘Lights On Afterschool!’’, a national celebration of after school 

programs. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 26 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 17), 2008 

Mr. DODD (for himself, Mr. ENSIGN, Mr. KOHL, Mr. BURR, Mrs. LINCOLN, 

Mr. STEVENS, Mr. CASEY, Mr. ROBERTS, Mr. FEINGOLD, Ms. 

STABENOW, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mrs. 

BOXER, Mr. BIDEN, Mr. BARRASSO, Ms. COLLINS, and Mr. SPECTER) 

submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was considered and 

agreed to 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Supporting ‘‘Lights On Afterschool!’’, a national celebration 

of after school programs. 

Whereas high quality after school programs provide safe, 

challenging, engaging, and fun learning experiences to 

help children and youth develop their social, emotional, 

physical, cultural, and academic skills; 

Whereas high quality after school programs support working 

families by ensuring that the children in such families are 

safe and productive after the regular school day ends; 

Whereas high quality after school programs build stronger 

communities by involving the Nation’s students, parents, 

business leaders, and adult volunteers in the lives of the 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

•SCON 104 ATS 

Nation’s youth, thereby promoting positive relationships 

among children, youth, families, and adults; 

Whereas high quality after school programs engage families, 

schools, and diverse community partners in advancing the 

well-being of the Nation’s children; 

Whereas ‘‘Lights On Afterschool!’’, a national celebration of 

after school programs held on October 16, 2008, promotes the critical importance of high quality after school 

programs in the lives of children, their families, and their 

communities; 

Whereas more than 28,000,000 children in the United States 

have parents who work outside the home and 14,300,000 

children in the United States have no place to go after 

school; and 

Whereas many after school programs across the United 

States are struggling to keep their doors open and their 

lights on: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), That Congress supports the goals and ideals 

3 of ‘‘Lights On Afterschool!’’ a national celebration of after 

4 school programs. 

Æ 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
§ 4003.9 Method and date of filing. ( a ) *Method of filing.* PBGC applies the rules in subpart A of part 4000 of this chapter to determine permissible methods of filing with PBGC under this part.
( b ) *Date of filing.* PBGC applies the rules in subpart C of part 4000 of this chapter to determine the date that a submission under this part was filed with PBGC.
[68 FR 61352, Oct. 28, 2003, as amended at 85 FR 10284, Feb. 24, 2020]
(79 South. 877)

#### BLACKBURN v. STATE.

(6 Div. 491.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

May 7, 1918.)

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; H. P. Heflin, Judge.

John W. Altman, of Birmingham, for appellant. F. Loyd Tate, Atty. Gen., for the State.

BR.OWN, P. J.

Appeal dismissed on motion of appellant.
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 10, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-30212

Summary Calendar

 

EDDIE JAMES JONES,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

MAIL ROOM STAFF, ALLEN CORRECTIONAL CENTER,

Defendant-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 02-CV-1840

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

Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Eddie James Jones, Louisiana prisoner # 176162, appeals the

district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action as

frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may

be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) & (ii). 

Jones argues that when the mail room staff at Allen Correctional

Center opened his legal mail which had been returned as

improperly addressed, they violated his right of access to the

courts and hindered his effort to use a procedure for filing
No. 03-30212

-2-

confidential grievances. The mail room staff apparently opened

Jones’ mail when it was returned to the prison because it was

improperly addressed. The prison mail staff did not violate

Jones’ right of access to the courts by opening his incoming

legal mail as prison officials may open incoming legal mail to

inspect it for contraband. See Brewer v. Wilkinson, 3 F.3d 816,

820-21 (5th Cir. 1993). Further, Jones did not allege that he

was prejudiced in any way in a legal proceeding or prevented from

filing another grievance because the mail room staff opened his

legal mail. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 349-51 (1996). 

Therefore, Jones has not shown that the district court erred in

dismissing his complaint.

Jones’ appeal is without arguable merit and, therefore, is

dismissed as frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20

(5th Cir. 1983); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. The district court’s dismissal

of his complaint and the dismissal of this appeal as frivolous

each count as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Jones is

cautioned that if he accumulates three strikes under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(g), he will not be able to proceed in forma pauperis in

any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or

detained in any facility unless he is in imminent danger of

serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
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 NetMeasure Technology Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Peter Laipnieks, President and acting CFO, 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







Date: August 23, 2004

By:/s/ PETER LAIPNIEKS

Name: Peter Laipnieks

Title:    President and Acting CFO
#### ANDRUS v YOUNGSTOWN MUNICIPAL RY CO

Ohio Appeals, 7th Dist, Mahoning Co

Decided March 8, 1929

Mr. John J. Boyle, Youngstown, for Andrus.

Messrs. Harrington, DeFord, Huxley & Smith, Youngstown, for Youngstown Municipal Ry Co.

FARR, J.

Upon a review of the testimony it seems clear that Mrs. Andrus was injured in this collision at least to some extent. To what extent it is not necessary to determine at this time, and the fact that she had recovered personally for the injuries that she sustained does not affect the right of the husband to recover for loss of her services by reason of the same injuries; This verdict was rendered by the jury, as already stated, regardless of the fact that it is practically conceded that if injuries were sustained that the liability of the company is not denied. True, she was later injured in an accident, but it is not shown that such injuries are the basis of the recovery sought by the husband.

As to the next proposition, that domestic trouble had arisen between husband and wife, it is disclosed that in behalf of the defendant below the pleadings in a divorce action were offered and received in evidence, by which it is disclosed that an action for divorce had been brought and answer and cross petition filed to the petition, but it is also disclosed that in about five months following the injuries that a reconciliation took place between the husband and wife and that they were again living together. At the time of trial about four years had intervened between the date of the injury and the trial; therefore, the temporary separation for the five months period would not bar the husband’s right to recover for loss of services after the expiration of that period and when they were again living together. As to the right of recovery under such circumstances there can be no question, under the rule announced in Railway Company v. Glenn, 68 OS., 395.

This principle is adhered to in the case of Smith v. Building Company, 93 OS., 104. *557It.is alleged in the petition that there had been incurred or paid various accounts such as the doctor bills of Drs. Deitchman, Mariner and Speck, for X-ray pictures, for the services of the wash-woman and other necessities; therefore, the conclusion reached is that this record discloses certain injuries to the wife; that these injuries, so far as the testimony goes to show, did affect her ability to attend to her household duties, and after the expiration of the five months period during which they were separated and for which the husband seeks to recover. Therefore, there was at least the right of the recovery of some amount since the liability of the defendant company is practically conceded.

The conclusion is, therefore, that the verdict and judgment are against the weight of the evidence, and the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Pollock and Roberts, JJ, concur.
#### § 2570.110 Scope of rules.

The rules of practice set forth in this subpart are applicable to “502(c)(6) civil penalty proceedings” (as defined in § 2570.111(n) of this subpart) under section 502(c)(6) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The rules of procedure for administrative hearings published by the Department's Office of Law Judges at Part 18 of this title will apply to matters arising under ERISA section 502(c)(6) except as modified by this section. These proceedings shall be conducted as expeditiously as possible, and the parties shall make every effort to avoid delay at each stage of the proceedings.
#### STATE ex Bd. of Ed. etc. v. BATEMAN et.

Ohio Supreme Court.

No. 21384.

Decided Dec. 26, 1928.

MARSHALL, C. J.

SCHOOLS & SCHOOL DISTRICTS.

(530 D) In the construction of Section 4690, General Code, the expression “any indebtedness on the school property in the territory annexed” shall be held to mean such indebtedness as, in the ordinary course of the administration of school affairs in the original district by which the indebtedness has been incurred, would have been paid by the levy and collection of taxes upon the the taxable property in the territory annexed.

In applying that statute to a case where territory has been detached from one school district and annexed to another, *45where the original district from which territory is detached has outstanding indebtedness, the district to which such territory is annexed shall be held to pay such proportion of such indebtednes as the tax valuation of the territory detached bears to the tax valuation of the property remaining.

Day, Allen, Robinson, Jones and Matthias, JJ.., concur. Kinkade, J., not participating.
#### § 2705.6 Request for correction or amendment to the record.

The individual shall submit a written request to the Executive Director which states the individual's desire to correct or to amend his or her record and details the specific corrections or amendments sought. This request is to be made in accord with provisions of § 2705.4.
§ 2570.119 Review by the Secretary. ( a ) The Secretary may review a decision of an administrative law judge. Such a review may occur only when a party files a notice of appeal from a decision of an administrative law judge within twenty (20) days of the issuance of such decision. In all other cases, the decision of the administrative law judge shall become final agency action within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 704.
( b ) A notice of appeal to the Secretary shall state with specificity the issue(s) in the decision of the administrative law judge on which the party is seeking review. Such notice of appeal must be served on all parties of record.
( c ) Upon receipt of a notice of appeal, the Secretary shall request the Chief Administrative Law Judge to submit to him or her a copy of the entire record before the administrative law judge.
#### Koskoff v. Kantorik

*Richard F. Maize,*for plaintiff.

*Ray, Coldren & Buck,*for defendant.

July 11, 1958.

•Carr, P. J.,

— To the complaint in this action for damages arising from the negligent operation of a motor vehicle defendant has filed preliminary objections raising a question of venue. Plaintiffs allege that the cause of action arose “on Route 31 near the eastern limits of Mt. Pleasant, Fayette County, Pennsylvania,” and that defendant “resides in Mt. Pleasant, Fayette County, Pennsylvania.” The return of the sheriff discloses that the complaint was served on defendant “at Mt. Pleasant” by the sheriff of Westmoreland County, pursuant to deputization by the sheriff of Fayette County.

We take judicial notice of the fact that Mt. Pleasant is a borough situated wholly in Westmoreland County, some miles beyond the borders of Fayette County, and therefore, the cause of action pleaded did not arise in Fayette County, nor does defendant reside here. In these circumstances it is clear that the service must be *359set aside and the action dismissed. See Badger v. Weigand, 7 D. *&*C. 2d 672.

*Order*

And now, July 11, 1958, upon consideration of the foregoing case, defendant’s preliminary objections are sustained, and the action dismissed, at the cost of plaintiffs.