alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXTENSION OF PURCHASE OPTION AGREEMENT



WHEREAS, Harry Bygdnes (the “Seller”)
and Lauren Notar (the “Purchaser”) are parties to a Purchase Option Agreement (the “Agreement”) dated November
6, 2009; and



WHEREAS, Section 1.2 of the Agreement requires
Purchaser to exercise her option to purchase shares of common stock of Source Gold Corp., a Nevada corporation, from Seller on
or before May 1, 2011 (the “Option Termination Date”); and



WHERAS, Purchaser and Seller desire to extend
the Option Termination Date by one (1) additional year,

NOW THEREFORE, for
good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:

1.The Option Termination Date as defined in the Agreement is hereby extended to May 1, 2012.

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



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed
this Extension of Purchase Option Agreement effective as of April 30, 2011.



|“Seller”
        
        
        
        /s/ Harry Bygdnes
        Harry Bygdnes | “Purchaser”
        
        
        
        /s/ Lauren Notar
        Lauren Notar
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exhibit
4.17


 


AMENDMENT


 


to


 


8%
SECURED CONVERTIBLE NOTE


DUE
NOVEMBER 30, 2009


 


This
Amendment (“Amendment”) to the 8% Secured Convertible Notes due November 30, 2009, dated November 17, 2017 and November
29, 2017 (the “Notes”) is entered into and effective as of the last date indicated below, by and between Intellinetics,
Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”) and the holders of the Notes (the “Holders”).


 


WHEREAS,
Company and the Holders entered into the Notes, effective November 17, 2017, and November 29, 2017; and


 


WHEREAS,
the Notes may be amended in accordance with Section 9.e of the Notes by a written instrument signed by the Company and the holders
of at least 51% in principal amount of the then outstanding Notes (the “Required Holders”).


 


WHEREAS,
the Company and the Required Holders desire to amend the Notes to permit the Company to continue making payments to a pre-existing
creditor and waive such payments made by the Company prior to the date of this Amendment.


 


NOW
THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:


 


1.
Section 7.e of the Notes is hereby deleted and replaced in its entirety with the following:


 


e)
repay, repurchase or offer to repay, repurchase or otherwise acquire any indebtedness, other than (i) the Notes if on a pro-rata
basis; or (ii) currently existing indebtedness of the Company to Ray Shealy.


 


2.
The Holders hereby agree to waive all of their rights under the Notes for any claims against the Company for breach or default
of the Notes with respect to any payments made by the Company to Ray Shealy during the period commencing November 17, 2017 and
ending with the effective date of this Amendment. Such prior payments are hereby ratified and approved by the Holders.


 


3.
Except as set forth herein, the terms of the Notes shall remain in full force and effect.


 


4.
This Amendment may be signed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall
constitute one and the same instrument.


 




    	 



     


    




 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the date of the last signature of a Required Holder hereto.


 


REQUIRED
HOLDER


 


	/s/
    Required Holders 	 


 


Print
Name: Required Holders


 


Date:
3/28/2018


 




    	 



     


    

 


INTELLINETICS,
INC.


 


	By:
    	/s/
    James F. DeSocio 	 
	Name:
    	James
    F. DeSocio 	 
	Title:
    	President
    & CEO
July 13, 1953

No. 57430.

Suit 4775.

#### United States *v.*Douglas Paper Company and Border Brokerage Company.

C. D. 1501. (Appeal dismissed May 13, 1953.)
Record of Conversation

February 23, 2012

1:30pm

Tyneka Thomas, ARM analyst, called and spoke to Joe Christiansen regarding the travel 

dates for William’s Make-A-Wish wish trip. Mr. Christiansen stated that the family

travelled earlier this week and no longer needed the exemption. Therefore, the 

exemption request is being withdrawn.
Exhibit
32





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





Gary
Basrai, President, Director,  President, Chief Executive and Operating
Officer, Treasurer, and Secretary of Ranger Gold Corp. (the “Company”)
certifies, under the standards set forth and solely for the purposes of 18
U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to his knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for
the year ended March 31, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange  Act of 1934 and information
contained in that Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and  results  of operations of the
Company.








Dated:
June 24, 2010





By: /s/ Gary
Basrai


Name:
Gary Basrai


Title:
Director, President, Chief Executive Officer,


Chief
Operating Officer, Treasurer, and Secretary


(Principal
Executive, Financial & Accounting Officer)








A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Ranger Gold Corp. and will be retained by Ranger Gold Corp. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
No. 65209.

#### Vivian J. Gelpi & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 703323-G/9887, etc. (New Orleans).

Opinion by

Richardson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *R. C. Williams & Co., Inc.*(40 C.C.P.A. 130, C.A.D. 508), and *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C.D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Attachment 1

Table 2a. Mercury (ng/l). Daily Limit.

Facility

Period Proposed

Limit

Average 

Concentration

Number of 

Days Tested

Number of 

Exceedances

Percentage of 

Exceedances Start 

Date

End 

Date

Hatfield's Ferry 07/07/09 10/25/11 242 158.33 128 15 11.7%

Keystone 09/14/10 12/30/13 242 4.55 115 0 0.0%

Miami Fort 07/01/09 12/03/13 242 176.64 81 21 25.9%

Pleasant Prairie 01/05/09 12/18/13 242 259.74 236 87 36.9%

Table 2b. Mercury (ng/l). Monthly Limit.

Facility

Period Proposed

Limit

Average 

Concentration

Number of 

Months Tested

Number of 

Exceedances

Percentage of 

Exceedances Start 

Date

End 

Date

Hatfield's Ferry 07/07/09 10/25/11 119 160.67 24 7 29.2%

Keystone 09/14/10 12/30/13 119 3.53 24 0 0.0%

Miami Fort 07/01/09 12/03/13 119 100.22 3 1 33.3%

Pleasant Prairie 01/05/09 12/18/13 119 281.79 31 26 83.9%
#### Edward Martin MCKENNA, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. R.C. LEE; Jim Godwin; Andy Artola; Judy Chapman; George Lipscomb; Janice Faulkner; Carol Howard; Lynn Phillips; Theodis Beck; John Does 1 through 34; 3M Corporation, Defendants-Appellees, and Michael F. Easley; Hal F. Askins; Jeffrey R. Edward; Martin T. Walter; Douglas F. McIntosh; Mark A. Lewis; Susan Freya Olive; Peter L. Olson; Charles Bullock; Finesse Couch; Reginald Mewborn; J. Bake Williams; Gregory T. Wah; Patrick Ballantine, Defendants.

No. 01-1493.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted July 12, 2001.

Decided July 19, 2001.

Edward Martin McKenna, Sr., pro se. James Donald Cowan, Jr., Smith, Helms, Mulliss & Moore, L.L.P., Greensboro, NC, for appellees.

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Edward Martin McKenna, Sr. appeals the district court’s order dismissing certain named and unnamed defendants. Appellee 3M Corporation has moved to dismiss the appeal. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); *Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,*337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

We grant Appellee 3M Corporation’s motion to dismiss and dismiss the appeal as interlocutory as to all Appellees. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court *211and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsPotential Commercial Applications from Combustion and Fire Research in SpaceThe near-zero (microgravity) environment of orbiting spacecraft minimizes buoyant flows, greatly simplifying combustion processes and isolating important phenomena ordinarily concealed by the overwhelming gravity-driven forces and flows. Fundamental combustion understanding - the focus to date of the NASA microgravity-combustion program - has greatly benefited from analyses and experiments conducted in the microgravity environment. Because of the economic and commercial importance of combustion in practice, there is strong motivation to seek wider applications for the microgravity-combustion findings. This paper reviews selected technology developments to illustrate some emerging applications. Topics cover improved fire-safety technology in spacecraft and terrestrial systems, innovative combustor designs for aerospace and ground propulsion, applied sensors and controls for combustion processes, and self-sustaining synthesis techniques for advanced materials.Document ID19970001589Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeConference PaperAuthorsFriedman, Robert*(NASA Cleveland, OH United States)*Lyons, Valerie J.*(NASA Cleveland, OH United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateSeptember 1, 1996Subject CategoryInorganic And Physical ChemistryReport/Patent NumberAIAA Paper 96-4439NASA-TM-107260NAS 1.15:107260E-10324Meeting InformationMeeting: Space Processing and TechnologyLocation: Huntsville, ALCountry: United StatesStart Date: September 24, 1996End Date: September 26, 1996Sponsors:American Inst. of Aeronautics and AstronauticsAccession Number97N11383Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 962-22-00Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19970001589.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
Before the FIRST Division,

March 6, 1961

No. 65231.

#### Max Eckardt & Sons Ornament Corp. *v.*United States,

protest 59/29009 (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Oliver, O. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of beads the same in all material respects as those the subject of *United States*v. S. *H. Kress & Co.*(46 C.C.P.A. 135, C.A.D. 716), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Exhibit
32.1





Certification
of the Chief Executive Officer/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,  Quinghua
Hu, certify,  pursuant  to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted  pursuant  to  Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that this Annual Report of Niusule Biotech Corp. on
Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2009, fully
complies  with  the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of  the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained
in such Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial
condition and results of operations of Niusule Biotech Corp.





Date:
      October 6, 2009By:
                /s/ Quinghua HuQuinghua
      Hu, CEO/CFO





A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating,
acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form
within the electronic version of this written statement required by
Section 906, has been provided to Niusule Biotech Corp. and will be
retained by Niusule Biotech Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
# • CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C9' 40 CFR Parts 270 and 124 as of June 30, 1999 (cont'd) CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C9 

### For Authorization of OneProvision
EPA Administered PermitPrograms: The Hazardous Waste Permit Program; Procedures for Decision Making

40 CFR Parts 270 and 124 as of June 30, 1999 as published in the July 1, 1999 CPR 

### State's Note ofExplanation: This section ofchecklist C9 is included in this application because the State is submitting it to be authorized for a portion of its "permitby rule" provisions. The state was originally authorized for Permit by Rule as part of the Base Program Authorization. The checklistis blank since this is a state provision for which there is no federal analog. Submittal of the checklist is not required; however, it is a useful tool to identify all contents of the application. The State amended its rule in 1998 to clarify that WAC 173-303-802(5) applies only to state-only wastes or federally regulated hazardous wastes that are generatedon site. As previously written, the provision applied to all dangerous wastes. There is an entry in the Attorney General's Statementnoting that this provision is broaderin scope than the federal program for state-only wastes and more stringent for federally regulated hazardous wastes. Authorization is being sought for this provision, which previously applied to both federally regulated hazardous .astes and state-only wastes, now that the rule has been amended to clarify that it applies only to state-only wastes.

STATEANAWG IS: FEDERALREQUIREMENTS CHECKLIST FEDERALRCRACITATION ANALOGOUS STATE LESS MORE REFERENCE CITATION EQUIV· STRIN· STRJN· BROADER ALENT GENT GENT IN SCOPE PART 270 - EPA ADMINISTERED PERMIT PROGRAMS: THE HAZARDOUS WASTE PERMIT PROGRAM

SUBPART F - SPECIAL FORMS OF PERMITS 

### t PERMITS BY RULE RCRA permit by rule if 

## * 270.60 listed conditions are met ocean disposal barges or vessels; specific V 270.60(a) conditions: permit under Part 220 V 270.60(a)(l) compliance with V 270.60(a)(2) conditions of that permit compliance with specified V 270.60(a)(3) hazardous waste 270.60(a)(3)(i)CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C9 40 CPR Parts 270 and 124 as ofJune 30, 1999 (cont'd) 

# o

STATE ANALOG IS:
FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS CHECKLIST FEDERAL RCRA CITATION ANALOGOUS STATE LESS MORE REFERENCE CITATION EQUIV- BROADER ALENT STRIN- STRIN- IN SCOPE GENT GENT regulations 270.60(a)(3)(ii) 270.60(a)(3)(iii) 270.60(a)(3)(iv) 270.60(a)(3)(v) 270.60(a)(3)(vi) injection wells; specific V 270.60(b) conditions: permitunderPart 144 or V 270.60(b)(l) 145 compliance with permit conditions and V 270.60(b)(2) 144.14 requirements 17 L 270.60(b)(3) 

# C) conditions for DIC permits issued after November 8, 270.60(b)(3)(i) 1984 44C 270.60(b)(3)(ii) publicly owned treatment V 270.60(c) works; specific conditions: NPDES permit V 270.60(c)(l) compliance with V 270.60(c)(2) conditions of permit 270.60(c)(3) 270.60(c)(3)(i) 270.60(c)(3)(ii) compliance with specified V 270.60(c)(3)(iii) regulations 270.60(c)(3)(iv) 270.60(c)(3)(v) 270.60(c)(3)(vi) 17 L 270.60(c)(3)(vii) 

# C)

waste meets all V 270.60(c)(4) pretreatmentrequirements
### NUMBER 13

- 18

- 00 080

- CV



## COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

- EDINBURG

IN RE EMMA PEREZ TREVINO, CARLOS SANCHEZ, MARCI

CALTABIANO

- PONCE, VALLEY MORNING STAR, THE MCALLEN

MONITOR, AND AIM MEDIA TEXAS, LLC

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus



## ORDER

Before Chief Justice Valdez, Justices Rodriguez and Benavides

Order Per Curiam

This cause is before the C ourt on real part in interest, Mark A. Cantu’s, second

moti o n for extension of time to file his response to petition for writ of mandamus

. Cantu’s

brief was due on March 7, 2018

. Cantu filed the present motion requesting an extension

to file his brief until April 6, 2018

.2

This Court, having fully e xamined and considered Cantu’s motion is of the opinion

t hat, in t he interest of justice, his second motion for extension of time to file his brief should

be granted in part with order.

The Court GRANTS Cantu’s second motion for extension of time in part and will

extend the deadline to file h is brief only for twenty days from the date of this order.

Further motions for extension of time will not be favorably entertained by this Court,

absent extraordinary circumstances.

PER CURIAM

D elivered and filed t he

9 t h day of M a r c h

, 2018

.
#### Daniel R. MILLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF MICHIGAN, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 04-1459.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

July 11, 2005.

Gary T. Miotke, Allen Park, MI, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Joseph Nimako, Gregory L. Ulrich, Cummings, McClorey, Davis & Acho, Livonia, MI, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before KEITH, DAUGHTREY, Circuit Judges, and WILLIAMS,* District Judge.

*

 The Honorable Glen M. Williams, United States District Judge for the Western District of Virginia, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM.

The Plaintiff-Appellant, Daniel R. Miller, appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment for the Defendant-Appellee, Municipal Employees’ Retirement System of Michigan (“MERS”). Miller was a police sergeant employed by the Oxford Emergency Safety Authority (“OSEA”)1 in Oxford, Michigan. MERS is a statewide, public employee pension fund serving governmental entities. At all times relevant to this matter, OSEA was a “participating municipality” in MERS. Miller brought suit against MERS, alleging that MERS treated him differently than other similarly-situated employees in calculating his retirement *456benefits, violating 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, M.C.L. § 37.2701(a), and Michigan’s Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act, M.C.L. § 37.1602(a).

On June 17, 2003, the district court, Judge George Caram Steeh presiding, entered an order denying MERS’s motion for summary judgment. The court concluded that there existed genuine issues of material fact over whether the cost discrepancies were part of MERS’s policy or custom. After additional discovery, MERS renewed its motion for summary judgment. On January 24, 2004, the district court concluded that based on the evidence presented, including testimony from Miller’s actuary, MERS did not have a policy of disparate treatment.

Having had the benefit of oral argument and having reviewed the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the district court was correct in its decision granting summary judgment for MERS. Because the district court thoroughly articulated its reasons for granting summary judgment, we find that the issuance of a full written opinion by this court would be duplicative and serve no useful purpose. We therefore adopt the reasoning of the district court in its opinion dated January 24, 2004, and AFFIRM the district court’s grant of summary judgment for MERS.

1

. After Miller's termination, OSEA changed its name to Oxford Public Fired and EMS Commission. In this order, we refer to the organization by its prior name.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1999
<CASH>                                           6,342
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  141,713
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,947
<INVENTORY>                                        490
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               162,394
<PP&E>                                          43,572
<DEPRECIATION>                                  24,020
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 228,597
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          125,731
<BONDS>                                         24,420
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            45
<OTHER-SE>                                      78,400
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   228,597
<SALES>                                        426,399
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               455,527
<CGS>                                          385,566
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  409,010
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   864
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 512
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,247
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,539
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,708
<DISCONTINUED>                                 (1,577)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,131
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.52
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.52


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32








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 Annual Report of Northsight Capital, Inc. (the “Registrant”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Annual Report”), we, Travis Jenson, President and Director, and Wayne Bassham, Secretary/Treasurer and Director, of the Registrant, 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 Annual 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 Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Registrant.








Date:
March 3, 2011

By:
/s/Travis JensonTravis JensonPresident and DirectorNorthsight Capital, Inc.Date:
March 3, 2011

By:
/s/Wayne BasshamWayne BasshamSecretary/Treasurer and DirectorNorthsight Capital, Inc.