alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.16

Sixth Amendment to Marketing Agreement

 

	This Sixth Amendment to Marketing Agreement ("Amendment") datedMay 30, 2002, is made and entered into by and between Charles Schwab & Co.,Inc., a California corporation, ("Schwab") and E-Loan, Inc., aDelaware corporation ("E-Loan"), and is effective as of July 1,2002.

	WHEREAS, Schwab and E-Loan have entered into a Marketing Agreement datedas of April 25, 2000 (the "Agreement"), and have amended the Agreementon five separate occasions; and

	WHEREAS, Schwab and E-Loan have a mutual desire to further amend theAgreement as set forth in this Amendment.

	NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereby agree as follows:

Section 5.5 is hereby deleted in its entirety and Section 5.6 is renumberedaccordingly.
Section 5.6 is hereby amended to delete the phrase "subject to Section5.5,".
Section 8.1 of the Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows:
**8.1    Marketing Fee.  In addition to the Warrant being provided byE-Loan to Schwab pursuant to section 8.2, E-Loan shall pay the following toSchwab for its marketing services provided pursuant to the Agreement:
For the period between July 1, 2002 and June 30, 2004, the sum of One MillionSixty One Thousand One Hundred Sixty Dollars ($1,061,160) payable in 24 equalmonthly installments commencing on July 31, 2002 and continuing on the last dayof each succeeding month.
Section 11.1 of the Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replacedwith the following:

**11.1     Termination for Convenience.  This Agreement will be effectiveas of July 1, 2000 (the "Effective Date").  Either party may terminatethis Agreement at any time without cause by providing the other party withthirty (30) days prior written notice.
Except for the changes set forth in this Amendment, the Agreement shallremain unchanged in all respects, and shall remain in full force and effect inaccordance with its terms.  To the extent inconsistent, all previous amendmentsare superceded by this amendment.

[Signatures on following page]
**E-LOAN, INC.**CHARLES SCHWAB & CO., INC.
By:_______________________
By:_______________________ 
Name:_____________________
Name:_____________________ 
Title:_____________________
Title:_____________________********
No. 11-1122.

#### Fernando *v.*Sapukotana, Surviving Spouse of Sapukotana, et al.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL CLERK’S RECORD

Appellate case name: In re Terr’l La’Yonne Mark, Relator

Appellate case number: 01-15-00582-CV

Trial court case number: 14-DCV-214998

Trial court: 387th/505th District Court of Fort Bend County

Relator, Terr’l La’yonne Mark, filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in this 

Court seeking to compel the respondent, The Honorable Brenda G. Mullinix, to enter an 

order granting his motion to transfer venue without a hearing of the underlying suit 

affecting the parent-child relationship from Fort Bend to Tarrant County. However, after 

reviewing the trial clerk’s website for the docket sheet and comparing it with the docket 

sheet attached as Exhibit 19 to relator’s appendix in support of his mandamus petition 

filed in this Court, it appears that the above case was reassigned from the 387th to the 

505th District Court of Fort Bend County, The Honorable David S. Perwin presiding.

Mandamus will not issue against a new trial judge for what a former one did or 

was asked to do. See In re Baylor Med. Ctr. at Garland, 280 S.W.3d 227, 228 (Tex. 

2008); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 7.2(b) (“If the case is an original proceeding under Rule 

52, the court must abate the proceeding to allow the successor to reconsider the original 

party’s decision.”). Accordingly, this Court lifts the stay previously imposed in this case 

and, pursuant to Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 34.5(c)(1), the trial court clerk is 

ordered to file a supplemental clerk’s record containing a certified copy of the docket 

sheet, entitled “Register of Actions,” for trial court case number 14-DCV-214998.

The supplemental clerk’s record shall be filed with the Clerk of the First Court of 

Appeals in the above-referenced original proceeding number 01-15-00582-CV within 10 

days of the date of this order. See TEX. R. APP. P. 34.5(c)(1), (3).

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Laura C. Higley

  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: July 22, 2016
# Comments on: 20-2207: CUSTOMPLAY, LLC v. AMAZON.COM, INC. [RULE 36 JUDGMENT], Nonprecedential
S89A0580.

#### ATLANTA METRO ASSOCIATED PLUMBING CONTRACTORS, INC. et al. v. MALOOF et al.

(386 SE2d 338)

Smith, Justice.

In December of 1988, the DeKalb County Board of Commissioners passed a resolution establishing a new sewer service policy. Under the new policy, DeKalb County offered sewer services on privately owned sewer lines for a fee. These services included cleaning out, replacing and installing “cleanouts” (grade level access openings to sewer lines). The appellants, an individual plumber and two plumbers’ associations, sought injunctive relief, complaining that DeKalb County’s use of public employees and funds to perform work on private property was beyond the scope of the County’s constitutional authority and in direct, illegal competition with private industry. The trial court disagreed and denied the appellants’ petition for injunctive relief.

This case is controlled by *Keen v. Mayor &c. of Waycross,*101 Ga. 588 (29 SE 42) (1897) and *Tift County Hosp. Auth. v. MRS of Tifton, Georgia, Inc.,*255 Ga. 164 (335 SE2d 546) (1985).1 DeKalb *778County’s actions in pursuing an independent business enterprise were clearly *ultra vires,*and the trial court erred in denying the appellants’ petition for injunctive relief.

Decided November 30, 1989

Reconsideration denied January 10, 1990.

*Alan C. Harvey, Wendell K. Willard,*for appellants.

*Joan F. Roach,*for appellees.

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur.*

1

 The appellee urges this Court to rely upon *Lee v. City of Atlanta,*197 Ga. 518 (29 SE2d 774) (1944), which held that the City could install, service, and maintain burglar alarm systems for a fee as a governmental function, even if in competition with private suppliers. As this case dealt primarily with the City’s power to “apprehen[d] criminals and suppress[] *778crime” as part of the police powers of the municipality, it is inapplicable to support appellee’s argument that it may provide sewage services in competition with private suppliers. The appellee further argues that if it is prohibited from performing sewage services on private property, then it is also prohibited from performing police, fire, and ambulance services on private property. Of course, the provision of these services on private property is allowed under *Lee.*
No. 11-9111.

#### Amaker *v.*Appellate Division, Supreme Court of New York, Second Judicial Department.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
# Comments on: 20-2210: SPEX TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. APRICORN [OPINION], Nonprecedential
Editorial Note on Part 1
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

§ 1.102 Effective dates of actions taken pursuant to delegated authority. ( a ) *Final actions following review of an initial decision.* ( 1 ) Final decisions of a commissioner, or panel of commissioners following review of an initial decision shall be effective 40 days after public release of the full text of such final decision.
( 2 ) If a petition for reconsideration of such final decision is filed, the effect of the decision is stayed until 40 days after release of the final order disposing of the petition.
( 3 ) If an application for review of such final decision is filed, or if the Commission on its own motion orders the record of the proceeding before it for review, the effect of the decision is stayed until the Commission's review of the proceeding has been completed.
( b ) *Non-hearing and interlocutory actions.* ( 1 ) Non-hearing or interlocutory actions taken pursuant to delegated authority shall, unless otherwise ordered by the designated authority, be effective upon release of the document containing the full text of such action, or in the event such a document is not released, upon release of a public notice announcing the action in question.
( 2 ) If a petition for reconsideration of a non-hearing action is filed, the designated authority may in its discretion stay the effect of its action pending disposition of the petition for reconsideration. Petitions for reconsideration of interlocutory actions will not be entertained.
( 3 ) If an application for review of a non-hearing or interlocutory action is filed, or if the Commission reviews the action on its own motion, the Commission may in its discretion stay the effect of any such action until its review of the matters at issue has been completed.
[28 FR 12415, Nov. 22, 1963, as amended at 62 FR 4170, Jan. 29, 1997]
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEFEXECUTIVE OFFICER REGARDING PERIODIC REPORT CONTAINING FINANCIAL STATEMENTSPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I,Oliver R. Grace, Jr., the Chief Executive Officer of Moscow CableCom Corp. (the "Company"),in compliance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, hereby certify that, to the best of myknowledge, the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter endedAugust 31, 2004 (the "Report") filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission:
    - Fully complies with the     requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of     1934; and  
    - The information     contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the     financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/           Oliver R. Grace,Jr.Name:     Oliver R. Grace, Jr.Title:        Chairman of the Board, President andChief Executive Officer               (Principal Executive Officer)Date:       October 15, 2004
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLICACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

 

Weconsent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 and Form S-8  (SEC File Nos. 333-123401,333-115033, 333-108672, and 333-108673) of****ElixirGaming Technologies, Inc. (formerly VendingData Corporation) of our reportdated February 28, 2006, except for Note 2, as to which the date is September25, 2007, included in this  Amendment No.1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A for the year ended December 31, 2005.

 

 

/S/ PiercyBowler Taylor & Kern Certified Public Accountants 

LasVegas, Nevada

 

October2, 2007

 

----
Exhibit 10.5

Schedule 5.22

Owned Real Property

|                                       |          |                  |  |       | 
|-------------------------------------- | -------- | ---------------- |  | ----- | 
|                                       | Property |                  |  | Owner | 
|                                       |          |                  |  |       | 
|                                       |          |                 
|3409 Camp
 Ground Road                 |          | ISA             
|Louisville,
 KY 40211                  |          |                 
|                                       |          |                 
|7110 Grade
 Lane                       |          | ISA Real
 Estate
|Louisville,
 KY 40213                  |          |                 
|                                       |          |                 
|6709 Grade
 Lane                       |          | ISA Real
 Estate
|Louisville,
 KY 40213                  |          |                 
|                                       |          |                 
|1617 State
 Road 111                   |          | ISA Real
 Estate
|New Albany,
 Indiana 47150             |          |                 
|                                       |          |                 
|7023, 7025,
 7101, and 7103 Grade Lane |          | 7021 Grade      
|Louisville,
 KY 40213                  |          |                 
|                                       |          |                 
|7124 Grade
 Lane                       |          | 7124 Grade      
|Louisville,
 KY 40213                  |          |                 
|                                       |          |                 
|7200 and
 7210 Grade Lane              |          | 7200 Grade      
|Louisville,
 KY 40219                  |          |                 
|                                       |          |                 
|1565 E. 4th
 Street                    |          | IN Real
 Estate 
|Seymour,
 Indiana 47274                |          |                 

---
1

July	31,	2015

Docket	Operations,	M-30

U.S. Department	of	Transportation (DOT)

1200	New	Jersey	Avenue,	SE

Room	W12-140,	West	Building	Ground	Floor

Washington,	D.C.	20590-0001

RE:	Amendment	to	StraightEdge	Aero,	LLC	Exemption	No.	12205.

Dear	Sir or	Madam:

StraightEdge	Aero,	LLC	was	issued	an	exemption	under	Section	333	of	the	“FAA	

Modernization	and	Reform	Act	of	2012”	numbered	12205 for	the	purposes	to	

conduct	aerial	photography	and	videography. StraightEdge	Aero,	LLC,	hereby	

requests	an	amendment	to	our FAA	Exemption	No. 12205,	Docket	No.	FAA-2015-

1873 to	expand	the	proposed	operations	that	were	originally	requested.	The	

proposed	operations	will be	operated	in	full	compliance	with	the	conditions	set	

forth	within	Exemption	No.	12205.

StraightEdge	Aero,	LLC	requested	aerial	photography	and	videography	services	to	

homeowners,	realtors,	builders,	contractors,	and/or	inspectors	for	use	in,	but	not	

limited	to,	real	estate	marketing	and	safer	inspections	of	home	and	building	

exteriors.	StraightEdge	Aero,	LLC	respectfully	requests	to	expand	our	aerial	

photography	and	videography	service	for	the	follow	uses:

1. Aerial	inspections,	mapping,	monitoring,	and	security	of	infrastructure	and	

operations	in	the	energy	industry.

a. See	Exemption	No.	11446 and	11538

2. Using	imagery	and	analytics	in	underwriting,	re-underwriting,	catastrophe	

response,	roof	inspection,	and	claim	resolutions	operations	in	the	insurance	

industry.

a. See	Exemption	No.	11188

3. Infrastructure	(bridge)	inspections

a. See	Exemption	No.	11171

4. Conduct	precision	agriculture	operations

a. See	Exemption	No.	12114 and	11172A

5. Aerial	surveys	for	oil,	power	and	gas	industries

a. See	Exemption	No.	11508

As	indicated	above,	there	is	good	cause	for	not	publishing	a	summary	of	the	petition	

in	the	Federal	Register	because	the	requested	exemptions	would	not	set	precedent,	

and	any	delay	in	acting	on	this	petition	would	be	detrimental	to	the	petitioner.

There	has	been	no	chance	in	the	conditions and	reasons	relative	to	public	interest	

and	safety	that	were	the	basis	for	granting	the	original	exemption.
2

Thank	you	for	your	time	and	consideration with	our	request.	Feel	free	to	contact	us	

with	any	additional	questions.

Sincerely,	

/s/	Nicholas	Flom

____________________________________

Nicholas	Flom Managing	Partner,	StraightEdge	Aero,	LLC
097A16

#### State v. Thomas P. Knight

1. Def’s Notice of Appeal Based Upon a Dissent (COA14-1015)

1.-

2. State’s Notice of Appeal Based Upon a Constitutional Question

2. Dismissed *ex mero motu*

3. State’s Petition in the Alternative for Discretionary Review Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31

3. Allowed
§ 301-75.3 What governing policies and procedures must we establish related to pre-employment interview travel? You must establish policies and procedures governing: ( a ) When you will pay pre-employment interview travel expenses, including the criteria for determining which individuals or positions qualify for payment of such expenses;
( b ) Who will determine, in each individual case, that a person qualifies for pre-employment interview travel expenses; and
( c ) Who will determine what expenses you will pay for each individual interviewee.
No. 11-205.

#### Bradshaw *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 92-1766.

#### Brickner v. Voinovich, Governor of Ohio, et al.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### Louis Ehrlich v. State of Nebraska.

Filed April 16, 1895.

No. 5807.

Oral Instructions: Criminal Law. Under the provisions of sections 52 to 56, chapter 19, Compiled Statutes, the giving of oral instructions in either civil or criminal cases, without a waiver of the statutory requirement that they be given in writing, is reversible error. An oral instruction, over proper objections, having been given in this case in disregard of the above statutory provisions, the judgment of the district court is reversed.

Error to the district court for Seward county. Tried below before Miller, J.

*Nor val Bros. &*Lowley, for plaintiff in error.

*George II. Hastings, Attorney General, contra.*

Ryan, C.

This case was submitted for our determination on April 5, 1895, and in accordance with the practice of this court in criminal cases is decided at the earliest practicable moment. The plaintiff in error was convicted in the district court of Seward county of an attempt to commit the crime of rape upon the person of a female child under the age of fifteen years. The case of *Hall v. State,*40 Neb., 320, will probably be found instructive as to several propositions discussed, hence they shall not receive special consideration. Among other instructions one was given to the effect that if the accused at any time administered drugs to the complaining witness in furtherance of his criminal design, such use of drugs would constitute an assault, whether successful or not. On the day following that upon which the case was submitted, the jury returned into court and by a communication signed by their foreman asked “further information ” in regard to the subject-matter of the above in*811struction. The court thereupon, in the absence of the accused, notwithstanding objections of counsel for the accused, orally»instructed the jury as follows: “Gentlemen of the jury: By the using of the word *‘*may ’ in this instruction means that the offense can be committed by the defendant laying a hand upon a -female child by a male person over eighteen years of age; or, in other words, that if from the testimony you should find that the defendant indecently handled or fondled the complaining witness in this case, that such would be an offense under the statute.” By an act of the legislature of this state approved February 19, 1875, now embodied in chapter 19 of the Compiled Statutes as sections 52 to 56 inclusive, it is required that all instructions, whether in criminal or civil cases, in the absence of an express waiver-in open court entered of record, shall be written, and that they must be read to the jury. Section 56 of said chapter contains the following provisions: “No oral explanation of any instruction authorized by the preceding sections shall in any case be allowed, and any instruction or charge, or any portion cf a charge or instructions given to the jury by the court and not reduced to writing as aforesaid, * * * shall be error in the trial of the case and sufficient cause for tlie reversal of the judgment rendered therein.” There is under this statute no alternative, and the judgment of the district court is

Reversed.

Norval, G. J., not sitting.
Exhibit 13.2



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002



I, Bruce Ramsden, Chief Financial Officer of Mountain Province
Diamonds Inc. (the “Company”), hereby 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:



| | 1. | the Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2014 (the “Annual Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | the information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | By:    | /s/ Bruce Ramsden      
| | ------ | -----------------------
| | Name:  | Bruce Ramsden          
| | Title: | Chief Financial Officer
| | Date:  | March 26, 2015         



This written statement is being furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Company’s Annual Report on Form 20-F. A signed original of
this 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.



This certification accompanies this
Annual Report on Form 20-F pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required
by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
"Exchange Act"). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.
IB

Union Calendar No. 28

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 808

[Report No. 106–45]

To extend for 3 additional months the period for which chapter 12 of title

11 of the United States Code is reenacted.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 23, 1999

Mr. SMITH of Michigan (for himself, Mr. GEKAS, Mr. MINGE, Mr. SHOWS,

Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska, Mr. LEACH, Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma, Mr.

BOEHLERT, and Mr. MCHUGH) introduced the following bill; which was

referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

MARCH 9, 1999

Additional sponsors: Mr. ETHERIDGE, Mr. WATKINS, Mr. GORDON, Mr. BEREUTER, Mr. ENGLISH, Mr. POMEROY, Mr. RILEY, Mrs. MINK of Hawaii,

Mr. HILL of Montana, and Mr. FOLEY

MARCH 9, 1999

Reported with amendments, committed to the Committee of the Whole House

on the State of the Union, and ordered to be printed

[Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed in italic]

A BILL

To extend for 3 additional months the period for which

chapter 12 of title 11 of the United States Code is reenacted.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 808 RH

1 SECTION 1. AMENDMENTS.

2 Section 149 of title I of division C of Public Law 105-

3 277 is amended—

4 (1) by striking ‘‘April 1, 1999’’ each place it

5 appears and inserting ‘‘July 1, 1999’’,

6 (2) in subsection (a)—

7 (A) by striking ‘‘September 30, 1998’’ and

8 inserting ‘‘March 31, 1999’’, and

9 (B) by striking ‘‘October 1, 1998’’ and in10 serting ‘‘April 1, 1999’’, and

11 (3) by striking subsection (c).

12 SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

13 The amendments made by section 1 shall take effect

14 on April 1, 1999.

15 SECTION 1. AMENDMENTS.

16 Section 149 of title I of division C of Public Law 105–

17 277 is amended—

18 (1) by striking ‘‘April 1, 1999’’ each place it ap19 pears and inserting ‘‘October 1, 1999’’,

20 (2) in subsection (a)—

21 (A) by striking ‘‘September 30, 1998’’ and

22 inserting ‘‘March 31, 1999’’, and

23 (B) by striking ‘‘October 1, 1998’’ and in24 serting ‘‘April 1, 1999’’, and

25 (3) by striking subsection (c).
3

•HR 808 RH

1 SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

2 The amendments made by section 1 shall take effect

3 on April 1, 1999.

Amend the title so as to read: ‘‘A bill to extend for

6 additional months the period for which chapter 12 of

title 11 of the United States Code is reenacted.’’.
Union Calendar No. 28

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 808

[Report No. 106–45]

A BILL

To extend for 3 additional months the period for

Code is reenacted.which chapter 12 of title 11 of the United States

MARCH 9, 1999

Reported with amendments, committed to the Committee

dered to be printedof the Whole House on the State of the Union, and or-