alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Converted by EDGARwiz


DEBT AMENDMENT




The Holder (the "Holder") is the holder of an outstanding promissory note issued by WRAPmail Inc. (the "Company"), in the principal amount of $15,000 of which the Company has (the "Note"),




The Holder and the Company now desire to amend certain provisions of the Notes as follows:




(a)

the Note, including all accrued interest thereon, shall be convertible into shares of the Company's common stock at a conversion price equal to the lesser of (i) $0.01, or (ii) fifty percent (50%) of the lowest Closing Bid Price of the Common Stock for the thirty (30) Trading Days preceding the Conversion Date;





(b)

the Maturity Date of the Notes shall be extended to February 1, 2017; and




(c)

The Holder may not convert the Notes to the extent such conversion would result in the Holder, together with any affiliate thereof, beneficially owning (as determined in accordance with Section 13(d) of the Exchange Act and the rules promulgated thereunder) in excess of 9.999% of the then issued and outstanding shares of Common Stock held by such Holder after application of this Section. Since the Holder will not be obligated to report to the Company the number of shares of Common Stock it may hold at the time of a conversion hereunder, unless the conversion at issue would result in the issuance of shares of Common Stock in excess of 9.999% of the then outstanding shares of Common Stock without regard to any other shares which may be beneficially owned by the Holder or an affiliate thereof, the Holder shall have the authority and obligation to determine whether the restriction contained in this Section will limit any particular conversion hereunder and to the extent that the Holder determines that the limitation contained in this Section applies, the determination of which portion of the principal amount of Notes are convertible shall be the responsibility and obligation of the Holder. If the Holder has delivered a Conversion Notice for a principal amount of Notes that would result in the issuance of in excess of the permitted amount hereunder, without regard to any other shares that the Holder or its affiliates may beneficially own, the Company shall notify the Holder of this fact and shall honor the conversion for the maximum principal amount permitted to be converted on such Conversion Date and, at the option of the Holder, either retain any principal amount tendered for conversion in excess of the permitted amount hereunder for future conversions or return such excess principal amount to the Holder. The provisions of this Section may be waived by a Holder (but only as to itself and not to any other Holder) upon not less than 65 days prior notice to the Company.




This Agreement shall be construed as to both validity and performance and enforced in accordance with and governed by the laws of the State of New York, without giving effect to the conflicts of the law principles thereof.





























This Agreement may not be modified or changed except by an instrument or instruments in writing executed by the parties hereto.




Dated: December 21, 2016

































I

1

I

I
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-7431

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

DAVID HOWARD HUGHES,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, 

District Judge. (1:05-cr-00273-MR-1)

Submitted: January 18, 2011 Decided: January 28, 2011

Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Howard Hughes, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

David Howard Hughes seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order construing his Petition for Writ of Error Audita 

Querela, 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (2006), as a successive 28 U.S.C.A. 

§ 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motion and denying it on that basis, 

and a subsequent order denying his motion for reconsideration. 

The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) 

(2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and 

conclude that Hughes has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave 

to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We 
3

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 21

Subsidiaries



|                                          |  |                              |  |                                          
|----------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------
|Entity                                    |  | Jurisdiction ofIncorporation |  | Name Under Which Entity Conducts Business
|                                          |  |                             
|Cellu Tissue Holdings, Inc.               |  | Delaware                     |  | Clearwater Paper Group                   
|                                          |  |                             
|Cellu Tissue CorporationNatural Dam      |  | Delaware                     |  | Clearwater Paper  Natural Dam           
|                                          |  |                             
|Cellu Tissue CorporationNeenah           |  | Delaware                     |  | Clearwater Paper  Neenah                
|                                          |  |                             
|Cellu Tissue LLC                          |  | Delaware                     |  | Clearwater Paper  East Hartford         
|                                          |  |                             
|Coastal Paper Company                     |  | Virginia                     |  | Clearwater Paper  Wiggins               
|                                          |  |                             
|Menominee Acquisition Corporation         |  | Delaware                     |  | Clearwater Paper  Menominee             
|                                          |  |                             
|Van Paper Company                         |  | Mississippi                  |  | N/A                                      
|                                          |  |                             
|Van Timber Company                        |  | Mississippi                  |  | N/A                                      
|                                          |  |                             
|Cellu TissueThomaston, LLC               |  | Delaware                     |  | Clearwater Paper  Thomaston             
|                                          |  |                             
|Cellu TissueLong Island, LLC             |  | Delaware                     |  | Clearwater Paper  Long Island           
|                                          |  |                             
|Cellu Tissue CorporationOklahoma City    |  | Delaware                     |  | Clearwater Paper  Oklahoma City         
|                                          |  |                             
|Interlake Acquisition Corporation Limited |  | Nova Scotia                  |  | Clearwater Paper  St. Catharines        
|                                          |  |                             
|Cellu Tissue CityForest, LLC              |  | Minnesota                    |  | Clearwater Paper  Ladysmith
EPA SANITIZED Page 1 of 8
 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 2 of 8
 

EPA SANITIZED Page 3 of 8
EPA SANITIZED Page 4 of 8
EPA SANITIZED Page 5 of 8
EPA SANITIZED Page 6 of 8
EPA SANITIZED Page 7 of 8
EPA SANITIZED Page 8 of 8
Case No. 9,647.

#### MILLARD v. CRAIG.

[8 Leg. Int. 22.]

District Court, S. D. New York.

Jan. 30, 1851.

Practice in Admiralty — Conditions to Defending — Costs—Stipulation.

[This was a libel in personam by Walter Millard and others against James E. Craig and others, owners of the scow Globe.]

THE COURT

decided that, in giving a bond to relieve property taken by a clause of foreign attachment, that the defendant must pay the taxed costs on said motion, as a condition to be permitted to defend the cause on its merits. Order accordingly.

On another motion in the same cause, THE COURT held that the supreme court, by rule 4, has changed the character and scope of stipulations in cases of personal arrest [Case No. 9,548.] In suits in personam, in whatever way the defendant is brought into court, he is required to give a stipulation to satisfy the decree before he can be admitted to defend the case, instead of giving stipulations for costs only.
SERVED: FEBRUARY 4, 2015 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

ARMAN GRIGORIAN 

DOCKET NO. FAA-2014-1120 

(Civil Penalty Action)-

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING 

This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 2013EA150071) has been assigned 

to Administrative Law Judge Richard C. Goodwin. All future pleadings and other 

communications regarding this proceeding shall be served on the Judge, the FAA Hearing 

Docket, and the other persons on the attached Service List. 

Attachment - Service List 

---:2:···-··--- ~ ~ l--0~/:::~ Chief Administrative 

onnie A. Yoder La)W'J~dgy 

.. / ~ ...... /· . ,. /~ 

L--···-·--
SERVICE LIST - BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl 0001 

Arman Grigorian, Respondent 

3126 Chadney Drive 

Glendale, CA 91026 

TEL: 818-636-8844 

Arsine Grun, Respondent's Counsel 

GRUN & Associates 

16200 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 205 

Encino, CA 91436 

P.O. Box 1301 

ONE COPY 

Mr. Zachary M. Berman, Complainant's Counsel 

Office of Regional Counsel, Eastern Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1 Aviation Plaza 

Jamaica, NY 11434 

TEL: 718-553-3258 

FPC(: 718-995-5699 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office ofHearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FPC(: 202-366-7536 

Docket No. FAA-2014-1120 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

2
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Christopher McNeill, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 997]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Goldstein, J.), rendered May 21, 1993, convicting him *777of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel is belied by the record. Defense counsel negotiated a very favorable plea agreement for the defendant. Counsel actively participated in the plea and sentencing proceedings. In addition, he explained the charge to which the defendant pleaded guilty and the waiver of the defendant’s right to appeal. All of these things evidence that counsel provided meaningful representation to the defendant *(see, People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137; *People v Boodhoo,*191 AD2d 448; *People v Kubik,*186 AD2d 271).

We have examined the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Sullivan, J. P., Thompson, Copertino, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Eddie Jones, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 27]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Juanita Bing Newton, J.), rendered June 3, 1991, convicting defendant, after jury trial, of murder in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 25 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

By order of this Court entered January 24, 1995, we held the appeal in abeyance and remitted the matter for a reconstruction hearing to determine whether defendant was present at the *Sandoval*hearing. (211 AD2d 551.) The reconstruction hearing was held on April 13, 1995, the court (Frederic S. Berman, J.) finding that defendant was present at the *Sandoval*hearing. There is no merit to defendant’s argument that the hearing evidence was "ambiguous.” Justice Juanita Bing Newton testified at the reconstruction hearing that she had an "independent recollection” that defendant was present at the *Sandoval*hearing. She also testified that she never conducted a proceeding where the defendant was not in court. The reconstruction court found defendant’s testimony to the contrary to be incredible as a matter of law.

Similarly meritless is defendant’s claim that his absence from an off the record bench conference at which defendant’s criminal record was discussed requires reversal. First of all, *357Justice Bing Newton testified that the bench conference out of defendant’s presence concerned a charge of which defendant had been acquitted and into which Justice Bing Newton precluded inquiry. Defendant was thus not entitled to attend this proceeding since its outcome was "wholly favorable” to him. *(People v Favor,*82 NY2d 254, 267.) In any event, since the *Sandoval*motion was argued and decided in defendant’s presence, he was not "prevented from having input into the decision-making process”. *(People v Tucker,*217 AD2d 418; *see also, People v Valentine,*212 AD2d 399, *Iv denied*85 NY2d 944.) Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach and Asch, JJ.
No. 62819.

#### Causse Mfg. & Imptg. Co. *v.*United States,

protest 58/3896 (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with rule 5(b) of the rules of this court, as amended, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 ORDER

Page - 1

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

RANDALL NOZAWA,

 Plaintiff,

v.

VOLVO CARS OF NORTH AMERICA,

LLC, a Delaware corporation,

Defendant.

Case No. C06-5067RBL

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

THIS MATTER is before the court following its Order to Show Cause dated August 17, 2006. That

Order, in turn, followed the withdrawal of Plaintiff’s counsel in April 2006. Plaintiff has informed the court

that he cannot locate new counsel. In the meantime it has been almost six months since Plaintiff’s Rule 26

disclosures were due. It has been more than 30 days since the Plaintiff was informed that, in the absence of

compliance with the Rules, the matter would be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The Plaintiff has not located

counsel or sought to prosecute the action pro se. 

Therefore, this matter is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to prosecute.

DATED this 27th day of October, 2006ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-05067-RBL Document 15 Filed 10/27/06 Page 1 of 1
No. 67147.

protests 59/29755, etc. (Tampa).

#### Transamerican Match Corporation *v.*United States,

*275Opinion by

Oliver, O.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *Falcon Sales Company*and *J. J. Murphy & Co.*v. *United States*(47 Cust. Ct. 129, C.D. 2292), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 58699.

protests 237349-K, etc. (New York).

#### Paolo Alonge, Inc., and General Shipping & Trading Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of cheese similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Fontana Hollywood Corp.*v. *United States*(30 Cust. Ct. 98, C. D. 1503), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
From: verafe@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 10:15:11 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,

Rudi Martinez-Ferrate

Draper, UT 84020
Before the Second Division,

April 10, 1963

No. 67590.

#### F. B. Vandegrift & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 313795-K (Philadelphia).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Schmidt Pritchard & Co. et al.*(47 CCPA 152, C.A.D. 750), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1998
<CASH>                                             920
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,143
<ALLOWANCES>                                       107
<INVENTORY>                                    128,281
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               143,662
<PP&E>                                         127,955
<DEPRECIATION>                                  73,151
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 220,941
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          120,841
<BONDS>                                         12,939
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           210
<OTHER-SE>                                      82,369
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   220,941
<SALES>                                        413,815
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               413,815
<CGS>                                          313,281
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  313,281
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                97,800
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    17
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,739
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (22)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        (5)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (17)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (17)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00
        

</TABLE>
H. Res. 768 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

December 11, 2007. 

Whereas Thomas ‘‘Tommy’’ Makem was born on November 

4, 1932 in Keady, County Armagh, in Northern Ireland; 

Whereas Thomas Makem emigrated from Ireland to Dover, 

New Hampshire in 1955, after having won the All-Ireland Championship in acting, to pursue a career in acting 

and carrying with him only a makeshift suitcase, a pair 

of bagpipes, and proof of his health; 

Whereas in 1956 Thomas Makem joined the Clancy Brothers, 

all of whom had immigrated to the United States from 

Ireland, and began performing musically together as 

‘‘The Clancy Brothers and Tommy Makem’’ and were 

signed by Columbia Records; 

Whereas in 1961 Thomas Makem performed at the Newport 

Folk Festival and, along with Joan Baez, was named as 

the most promising newcomer; 

Whereas in 1963 the Clancy Brothers and Tommy Makem 

performed at the White House at the request of President John F. Kennedy; 

Whereas the Clancy Brothers and Tommy Makem continued 

to perform and record music together, performing in 

venues such as Carnegie Hall and on programs including 

The Ed Sullivan Show and The Tonight Show until 1969 
2 

•HRES 768 EH 

when Thomas Makem left the band amicably to pursue 

a solo career; 

Whereas in 1975 Thomas Makem again joined with Liam 

Clancy and the duo performed together until 1988, including a Clancy Brothers and Tommy Makem reunion 

at the Lincoln Center in New York City, New York; 

Whereas in 1997 Thomas Makem wrote a book, Tommy 

Makem’s Secret Ireland, and in 1999 premiered his own 

one-man theatre show, Invasions and Legacies, in New 

York, and established the Tommy Makem International 

Festival of Song in South Armagh, Ireland in 2000; 

Whereas throughout his performing career Thomas Makem 

was highly regarded as an exceptional musician by both 

his colleagues and the public and received many awards 

and honors including the World Folk Music Association’s 

Lifetime Achievement Award in 1999 and honorary doctorates from the University of New Hampshire in 1998, 

the University of Limerick in 2001, and the University 

of Ulster in 2007; and 

Whereas Thomas Makem died on Wednesday, August 1, 

2007 in Dover, New Hampshire and will now be remembered as a dedicated husband, father, and grandfather 

and as one of the greatest Irish-Americans of the 20th 

Century: Now, therefore, be it 
3 

•HRES 768 EH 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives honors the 

life of Thomas ‘‘Tommy’’ Makem, and his accomplishments 

as a musician, composer and performer. 

Attest: 

Clerk.