alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ex1036.htm












LOAN AGREEMENT


March 30, 2016







Tradex Capital Corp., (the “Lender”) of 888 Dunsmuir Street, Suite #1100, Vancouver, BC, V6C 3K4, advanced USD$30,000 (the “Principal Sum”) to Cell MedX Corp. (the “Borrower”) of 2857 Sumter Valley Circle, Henderson, NV 89052.  The Lender advanced the funds on March 30, 2016.







The Borrower agrees to repay the Principal Sum on demand, together with interest calculated and compounded monthly at the rate of 6% per year (the “Interest”) from March 30, 2016.  The Borrower is liable for repayment for the Principal Sum and accrued Interest and any costs that the Lender incurs in trying to collect the Principal Sum and the Interest.







 


The Borrower will evidence the debt and its repayment of the Principal Sum and the Interest with a promissory note in the attached form.


 


LENDER                                                                      BORROWER


Tradex Capital Corp.                                                Cell MedX Corp.







Per:                                                                               Per:












/s/ William Friesen                                                  /s/ Yanika Silina                                                                      


Authorized Signatory                                               Yanika Silina, CFO
















  





  











  








PROMISSORY NOTE







Principal Amount:  USD$30,000                                                                                                                                March 30, 2016












For value received Cell MedX Corp., (the “Borrower”) promises to pay on demand to the order of Tradex Capital Corp. (the “Lender”) the sum of $30,000 lawful money of United States (the “Principal Sum”) together with interest on the Principal Sum from March 30, 2016 (“Effective Date”) both before and after maturity, default and judgment at the Interest Rate as defined below.







For the purposes of this promissory note, Interest Rate means 6 per cent per year.  Interest at the Interest Rate must be calculated and compounded monthly not in advance from and including the Effective Date (for an effective rate of 6.2% per annum calculated monthly), and is payable together with the Principal Sum when the Principal Sum is repaid.







The Borrower may repay the Principal Sum and the Interest in whole or in part at any time.







The Borrower waives presentment, protest, notice of protest and notice of dishonour of this promissory note.



























BORROWER


Cell MedX Corp.







Per:












/s/ Yanika Silina







Yanika Silina, CFO
Exhibit 4.110


 


SHARE PURCHASE AGREEMENT


between


VRG AS (reg. no. 998372801)


("Seller")


AND


Mezzanine Financing Investment III Ltd.


("Buyer")


24 NOVEMBER 2015


This agreement (the "Agreement") has been entered into between Seller and Buyer on this 24th day of November 2015:



		1.	The Seller hereby sells, and the Buyer hereby acquires all the shares the Seller owns in Nautilus Offshore Services Inc, a Marshall Islands corporation (which is referred therein as the "Company"and the "Shares").Based on the information from the Company, the Seller currently owns directly 376,802 shares of Common Stock, 376,802 shares of Series A Preferred Shares, and 0 shares of Series B Preferred Shares, in Nautilus Offshore Services Inc.






		2.	The total purchase price for all of the Shares is USD 1,500,000=






		3.	The transfer of Shares takes place upon the signing of this agreement by both parties. As from the same time the Buyer takes over all rights and obligations as a shareholder in the Company.






		4.	The total purchase price to be paid as soon as possible, and latest within three working days to the following account held by the Seller in DNB;





Account number 1250 04 88555

IBAN NO29 1250 0488 555

BIC (Swift) DNBANOKKXXX



		5.	In the event that the Buyer does not transfer the total purchase price to the Seller, the Buyer shall on demand pay interest on the sum due, from and including the day after the due date to the date of actually payment, at the rate of 20% per annum. Payment for the Shares and any interest due to late payment to be guaranteed by Dryships Inc.






		6.	The Seller represents and warrants that:















		(i)	the Shares are owned by the Seller, free from any encumbrances, liens or restrictions of any kind whatsoever;






		(ii)	there are no warrants, options or other rights of any nature vested with any third party in respect of the Shares or in respect of any right to acquire any ownership interest in the Subsidiary;






		(iii)	the Seller's Board of Directors has approved and authorised the sale of the Shares;





This agreement has been executed in two copies, one to each party.


***


Seller:


VRG AS


/s/ Svein-Harald Mosvold Knutsen


Date:  24 November 2015


Name: Svein-Harald Mosvold Knutsen


Buyer:


/s/ Ziad Nakhleh


Date:  24 November 2015


Name: Ziad Nakhleh
#### In the Matter of the Accounting of Edward N. Tailer et al., as Executors of William H. Tailer, Deceased. William H. Tailer, Jr., et al., Appellants; Henry R. C. Watson et al., as Executors of Maria C. Tailer, Deceased, et al., Respondents.

*Matter of Tailer,*147 App. Div. 741, affirmed.

(Argued May 2, 1912;

decided May 21, 1912.)

Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered January 16, 1912, which reversed a decree of the New York County Surrogate’s Court construing the will of William H. Tailer, deceased.

*William H. Hamilton*and *Norman C. Conklin*for appellants.

*John M. Bowers, Latham G. Reed*and *Gerald 8. OHoughlin*for executors of Maria C. Tailer, deceased, respondents.

*Edward 8. Frith*and *Winston H. Hagen*for executors of Wilham H. Tailer, deceased, respondents.

Order affirmed, with costs to both parties payable out of estate, on opinion of McLaughlin, J., below.

Concur: Cullen, Oh. J., Cray, Haight, Vann, Werner, Hiscock and Collin, JJ.
EX-4.60



 Exhibit 4.60 

Share Subscription Agreement 

(This Agreement was signed by the following two parties on 29/1/2016 in Beijing) 

Issuer: China Tower Corporation Limited (“China Tower”) 

Subscriber: China Telecom Corporation Limited 
 In view that the
Issuer and the Subscriber signed the “Agreement in relation to the Acquisition of Acquired Towers and Related Assets by Allotment and Issue of Shares and Payment of Cash” on 14 October 2015. Based on the aforesaid Agreement and the
practical circumstances of Completion of tower-related assets, the Issuer confirmed the allotment of 119,344,615,024 shares in total at an issue price of RMB 1 per share. 

1. Subscription Price 
 RMB 1 per share. 

2. Subscription Amount and Quantity 
 The Subscriber confirmed to
pay RMB 33,097,147,592 to subscriber for 33,097,147,592 shares. 
 3. Subscription Method 

The Subscriber agreed to subscribe for the shares issued by way of assets contribution and cash contribution, of which the assets contribution was RMB
30,131,155,844 and the cash contribution was RMB 2,965,991,748. 
 4. Payment Method 

The Subscriber has practically completed the assets contribution before 31 December 2015 and the cash contribution would be settled before 30 January
2016. 
 5. Shareholders’ Rights and Obligations 
 Both
parties confirmed that the Subscriber should become the owner of shares allotted (or to be allotted) for this transaction on the effective date of this Agreement, and thereby entitle to the shareholder rights and bear the shareholders’
responsibilities. Both parties agreed that the Issuer should arrange the relevant procedures including the update of register of shareholders, amendments to Articles of Association and change in business registration within 30 days after signing the
Share Subscription Agreement. 







 6. Effective Date and Copies 

This Agreement was with effect from December 31, 2015. This agreement was executed in six duplicates where each party holding two copies and the rest copies to
be submitted for examination and approval/record filing. 
 (Below was intentionally left blank) 







 This page is the signature page to the Share Subscription Agreement. 

 

	
	China Tower Corporation Limited
	
	(seal)
	
	Legal representative or authorized representative:

  

	
	China Telecom Corporation Limited
	
	(seal)
	
	Legal representative or authorized representative:
EXHIBIT 21


SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT


1.       Legends in Concert, Inc., a Nevada corporation
2.       On Stage Marketing, Inc., a Nevada corporation
3.       Interactive Events, Inc., a Georgia corporation
4.       Fort Liberty, Inc., a Nevada corporation
5.       Wild Bill's California, Inc., a Nevada corporation
6.       Blazing Pianos, Inc., a Nevada corporation
7.       King Henry's, Inc., a Nevada corporation
8.       On Stage Theaters, Inc., a Nevada corporation*
9.       On Stage Theatres Canada, Inc., an Ontario, Canada corporation


* On Stage Theaters, Inc. does business as On Stage Dinner Theaters, Inc.
  in California.
* Pursuant to 5th Cir R. 47.5, the court has determined that this

opinion sh o uld 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 FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________________ No. 98-20919 Summary Calendar

_______________________ LYNWOOD DALE KINDT; SANDRA ANN KINDT, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus U S DEPARTM ENT OF TRANSPORTATION; RODNEY E. SLATER, Secretary of Transportation, United States Department of Transportation, Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

(H-97-CV-363)

_________________________________________________________________ May 19, 1999 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *

The court has considered appellants’ position in light of the briefs and pertinent portions of the record. Having done so,

we find no reversible error of fact or law and affirm for essentially the reasons stated by the district court.

AFFIRMED
.
From: Mary A Guinger

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Restriction on Birth Control Availability

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 3:43:19 AM

Birth Control protects a woman from unwanted consequences that she

cannot control

such as rape, abortion, poverty, diseases.

 As a Child Protective Representative, I know that 50% of women in

the U.S. have been sexually abused.

I asked my professional women friends if they were sexually abused.

Nine out of ten said," Yes,"

Birth Control protects.

Mary Guinger

Counselor and Teacher
From: Ann Tretter

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Please accept Institute of Medicine recommendations on preventive care

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 7:26:00 PM

I am writing to implore you to accept the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine on

coverage of preventive care under the new health care law. Any exemptions for “religious

employers” would undermine the intent of the plan and deprive untold numbers of woman

from these vital services. Preventive services are a critical element of the new law and I

stand with the American Association of University Women in urging you to stand firm

against those who would erode the intent if the Institute’s recommendations.

While AAUW believes that “religious refusal” exemptions unjustly deny women access to

contraceptive services, I understand that at the opposite end of the spectrum are those

pushing the government to make exemptions even larger. Some groups are pushing for the

exemption to apply to religiously-run health providers, so hospitals with religious

affiliations would be exempt from the coverage requirement even though they employ people

of all faiths and ideologies.

I urge you to ensure women have access to quality preventive care by accepting IOM’s

recommendations and rejecting the proposed religious refusal exemption provisions.

Thank you for your consideration.

Ann Tretter

St. Louis, MO
From: Huber, Jeffrey M

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: I oppose the Definition of Religious Employer in Health Care Rules

Date: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 7:03:14 AM

The current definition of religious employer does not provide true conscience

protection for those committed to preserving life. Health care plans should not be

forced to violate the moral and religious convictions of providers or employees in

order to participate in the health care system. Requiring such an unacceptable

demand threatens both universal access to health care and religious freedom of

conscience. Providing such a dangerous definition threatens the provision of service

to millions of people who receive health care services from Catholic hospitals and

other Catholic social service agencies. Please further research the actual effect of this

mandate before implementing it.

Thank you.

Jeffrey Huber, ACDP

A faithful, tax-paying, U.S. Citizen
From: jane.a.torres@gmail.com on behalf of Jane Torres

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Preventive care

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 12:05:26 PM

I join with the American Association of University Women (AAUW) in asking you to

accept the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine as pertain to coverage of

preventive care under the new health care law, and to reject any exemptions for

“religious employers.” These preventive services are a critical element of the new

law and would provide countless women better access to necessary health care.

While AAUW believes that “religious refusal” exemptions unjustly deny women

access to contraceptive services, others, driven by an ideological distaste for all

contraceptive services, are pushing the government to make exemptions even larger.

Indeed, some groups are pushing for the exemption to apply to religiously-run

health providers, so hospitals with religious affiliations would be exempt from the

coverage requirement, even though they employ people of all faiths and ideologies.

If granted, this larger exemption would deny access to thousands of women just

because of where they work.

I urge you to ensure women have access to quality preventive care by accepting

IOM’s recommendations and rejecting the proposed religious refusal exemption

provisions.

Sincerely,

Jane A. Torres

600 Grapetree Drive

Key Biscayne, Fl. 33149

-- 

Jane A. Torres MA, LMFT

801 Brickell Avenue Suite 937

Miami, Florida 33131

305-371-2773
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 December 10, 2014

h1203

Order 

Clerk

December 10, 2014

149494 & (50)(55)

MAKENZIE GREER, a minor,

KENNETH GREER, individually and

as conservator, and ELIZABETH

GREER,

Plaintiffs-Appellees/

Cross-Appellants,

SC: 149494

v COA: 312655

Kent CC: 10-009033-NH

ADVANTAGE HEALTH and ANITA

R. AVERY, M.D.,

Defendants-Appellants/

Cross-Appellees,

and

TRINITY HEALTH MICHIGAN, d/b/a

ST. MARY’S HOSPITAL and KRISTINA

MIXER, M.D.,

Defendants.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for leave to file a brief amicus curiae is 

GRANTED. The application for leave to appeal the May 13, 2014 judgment of the Court 

of Appeals and the application for leave to appeal as cross-appellants are considered, and 

they are GRANTED.
#### Mary Yuzwiczki, as Administratrix of the Estate of John Yuzwiczki, Deceased, Respondent, *v.*The Solvay Process Company, Appellant.

*Yuzwiczlti*v. *golvay Process Co.,*140 App. Div. 921, affirmed.

(Argued March 21, 1912;

decided April 9, 1912.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered October 22, 1910, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict in an action to recover for the death of plaintiff’s intestate, alleged to have been occasioned through the negligence of defendant, his employer.

*Louis L. Waters*for appellant.

*R. J. Shanahan*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Oh. J.; Haight, Vann, Willard Bartlett, Hiscock, Chase and Collin, JJ.
From: johndawes@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 11:56:12 AM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to demand in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I demand that you expand conscience

protections for any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or

religious objections. I strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans

especially for drugs and devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as

ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

John Dawes

Poulsbo, WA 98370
From: tr2310@att.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:03:07 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Travis Rainey

Pelham, AL 35124
Here's how you know
 **Official websites use .mil** .mil
 **Secure .mil websites use HTTPS** lock () https://


Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
            
            U.S. Central Command
                CENTCOM
        Search
                    Search CENTCOM:
                        Search
                Search CENTCOM:
                    Search
    Home

    ABOUT US
    
        COMMAND PRIORITIES

    LEADERSHIP

    COMPONENT COMMANDS

    HISTORY

    POSTURE STATEMENT

    CENTCOM AOR
    
        CENTCOM COALITION

    OPERATIONS AND EXERCISES
    
        USMTM

    CIVILIAN CASUALTY REPORT

    CONTACT
    
        OPERATIONAL CONTRACT SUPPORT

    COMMUNITY RELATIONS

    THEATRE MEDICAL CLEARANCE

    INNOVATION VENDOR PORTAL

    MILITARY MEMBER INNOVATION PORTAL

    MEDIA
    
        SOCIAL MEDIA

    NEWS ARTICLES

    PRESS RELEASES

    STATEMENTS

    IMAGERY

    VIDEOS

    TRANSCRIPTS

    VISITORS AND PERSONNEL
    
        FAMILY CENTER

    FAMILY READINESS

    CENTCOM WEBMAIL

    SOCIAL MEDIA SECURITY

    ACCOUNTABILITY

    EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

    USCENTCOM UNCLASSIFIED REGULATIONS

    FOIA LIBRARY

    INNOVATION OASIS

    WELCOME GUIDE  Search
 Search
 All Images All ImagesCommunity RelationsOtherPreviousCommanders
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Share
  
 Small () Medium () Full Size (6.76 MB)
 Photo Gallery
 About UsCommand PrioritiesLeadershipComponent
   CommandsHistoryPosture Statement
   Area of
   ResponsibilityCENTCOM Coalition
   Operations And
   ExercisesOperation Inherent
   ResolveResolute Support
   MediaSocial MediaNews ArticlesPress ReleasesVideo And Imagery
   Visitors And
   PersonnelFamily ReadinessCENTCOM WebmailSocial MediaSecurityAccountabilityEmergency
   Preparedness
   ContactCommunity Relations
                    Stay Connected
                
                Privacy & Security  Inspector General  FOIA  Privacy Act
            

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
EXHIBIT 23 Consent of Independent Registered Public
Accounting Firm The Board of
Directors 
Hills Bancorporation: We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration
statements (No. 333-736006 and No. 33-2657) on Form S-8 of Hills Bancorporation
of our report dated March 11, 2009, with respect to the consolidated balance
sheets of Hills Bancorporation and subsidiary as of December 31, 2008 and 2007,
and the related consolidated statements of income, comprehensive income,
stockholders equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year
period ended December 31, 2008, and the effectiveness of internal control over
financial reporting as of December 31, 2008, which report appears in the
December 31, 2008 annual report on Form 10-K of Hills Bancorporation. /s/ KPMG LLP Des Moines,
Iowa 
March 11, 2009 Page 104 of 107