alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.2


 


 


February 26, 2018


 


NioCorp Developments Ltd.


7000 South Yosemite Street, Suite115

Centennial, CO 80112


 


Attention: John F. Ashburn Jr., Vice President & General
Counsel


 


Dear Sirs/Mesdames:


 


		Re:	Amending Agreement -

Credit Facility Agreement between NioCorp Developments Ltd. and Mark Smith



 


Pursuant to a credit facility agreement between NioCorp Developments
Ltd. (the "Borrower") and Mark Smith (the "Lender") dated January 16th, 2017 and as amended March
20, 2017 (the "Credit Facility Agreement"), the Lender advanced a loan to the Borrower on the terms and conditions set
out therein.


 


The Borrower and the Lender wish to amend the Credit Facility
Agreement in the manner set forth herein.


 


INTERPRETATION


 


All words and expressions defined in the Credit Facility Agreement
have the same meaning when used herein. Reference to the Credit Facility Agreement includes amendments thereto from time to time,
including the amendments made by this amending agreement. All references herein to sections of or schedules to an agreement other
than this amending agreement are to sections of and schedules to the Credit Facility Agreement, unless otherwise expressly stated.
Clause headings are for reference only.


 


EFFECTIVE DATE


 


The provisions of the Credit Facility Agreement are amended
as set out in this amending agreement effective as of the date of acceptance by Borrower below.


 


AMENDMENTS


 


Section 1.1(K) of the Credit Facility Agreement shall be deleted
and replaced in its entirety with the following new Section 1.1(k):


 


“Term” means a period commencing
on the Effective Date and expiring June 16, 2019.


 


MISCELLANEOUS


 


With the exception of the foregoing amendments, the Credit
Facility Agreement shall continue in full force and effect unamended.


 


This amending agreement may be executed by the parties hereto
in separate counterparts, each of which when so executed and delivered (including by facsimile transmission or as a pdf attachment
to an e-mail) shall constitute an original, but all such counterparts when taken together shall constitute one and the same instrument.


 









    	 



     


    

 


Please indicate your acceptance of this amending agreement
by signing and returning the enclosed duplicate copy of this letter.


 


Yours truly,






MARK A. SMITH


 


/s/ Mark Smith                                                    

Mark A. Smith


 


 


Accepted by Borrower as of the 6th day of
April, 2018.


 


NIOCORP DEVELOPMENTS LTD.


 


By: /s/ John F. Ashburn Jr.                              


Name: John F. Ashburn Jr.

Title: Vice President & General Counsel
No. 66574.

#### U.S. Divers Corp. *v.*United States,

protests 61/3229 and 61/4253 (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of diving masks similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 63864, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
**Exhibit 23.1**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

The Board of Directors 

Digimarc Corporation: 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No. 001-34108) on Form 10 and (No. 333-154524) on FormS-8 of Digimarc Corporation of our reports dated March 3, 2011, with respect to the balance sheet of Digimarc Corporation as of December 31, 2010, and the related statement of operations, shareholders’ equity, and cash flows for theyear ended December 31, 2010, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2010, which reports appear in the December 31, 2010 annual report on Form 10-K of Digimarc Corporation. 

/s/ KPMG LLP 

Portland, Oregon

March 3, 2011
Before the First Division,

July 23, 1952

No. 56798.

#### Fujimoto Trading Company et al. *v.*United States,

protests 71441-K, etc. (Honolulu).

*348Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is similar in all material respects to the so-called rubber boots the subject of Abstract 56309, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           5,736
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                10,200
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     14,848
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          22,065
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            22,063
<LOANS>                                         42,812
<ALLOWANCE>                                        470
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  85,020
<DEPOSITS>                                      77,109
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                495
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,980
<OTHER-SE>                                       4,436
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  85,020
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  3,355
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  866
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   458
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 4,679
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               1,542
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            3,137
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   6
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  2,517
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    951
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         706
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       706
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.70
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.70
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    5.02
<LOANS-NON>                                         17
<LOANS-PAST>                                       411
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   491
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       22
<RECOVERIES>                                         1
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  470
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
---

|Coded Tables | 
|------------ | 



|These data are released whenever there are code changes.                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Complete file (2 MB PDF)Cover page and table of contents (500 KB PDF)
Summary tables (205 KB PDF)
Flows tables (550 KB PDF)
Level tables (525 KB PDF)
Balance sheet tables (70 KB PDF)
Supplementary tables (130 KB PDF)
Integrated macroeconomic accounts table (290 KB PDF)

|These files are available in Acrobat (PDF 3) format only.Obtaining the free Acrobat Reader from the Adobe Web Site
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Release dates | 
Announcements | 
Coded tables | Historical data | About| Technical Q&AsCurrent release | 
Screen reader |  
PDF (2.3 MB) | 
Data Download Program (DDP)  | Preliminary Z.1 Code Updates

Statistical releases

---

Home Economic research and data  Accessibility Contact Us  Last update: March 6, 2014
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Integrated Circuit Systems, Inc. (the Company) for the period ending January 1, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Hock E. Tan, Chief Executive Officer of 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:



(1) The 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 Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Hock E. Tan        
|Hock E. Tan            
|Chief Executive Officer
|May 12, 2005
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 - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

HENRY VERN FOX,

Plaintiff,

v.

HENRY RICHARDS, et al,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-5063 RBL/KLS

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

This civil rights action has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge Karen L.

Strombom pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local MJR 3 and 4. Before the Court is

Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (Dkt. # 19). Having reviewed the motion and

Plaintiff’s supporting memorandum, the Court finds, for the reasons stated below, that the motion

should be denied.

There is no right to have counsel appointed in cases brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Although the court, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), can request counsel to represent a party proceeding

in forma pauperis, the court may do so only in exceptional circumstances. Wilborn v. Escalderon,

789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1236 (9th Cir. 1984);

Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089 (9th Cir. 1980). A finding of exceptional circumstances requires

an evaluation of both the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to

articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Wilborn, 789 F.2d

at 1331.

Case 3:06-cv-05063-RBL Document 21 Filed 12/19/06 Page 1 of 2
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 - 2

Plaintiff has demonstrated an adequate ability to articulate his claims pro se and has not

demonstrated that the issues involved in this case are complex or that he has had any difficulties in

expressing them. Plaintiff has brought forth his claims in a clear and organized manner. While

Plaintiff may not have vast resources or legal training, he meets the threshold for a pro se litigant and

the Court finds that counsel is unnecessary in this case. In addition, Plaintiff has not shown a

likelihood of success on the merits. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel (Dkt. # 19) is

DENIED.

The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to Plaintiff and counsel for Defendants.

DATED this 18th day of December, 2006. 

A

Karen L. Strombom

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05063-RBL Document 21 Filed 12/19/06 Page 2 of 2
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION**  

**Pursuant to Section 302 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**  

I, StevenSamblis, certify that: 

     1. Ihave reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of IC Places, Inc. as of December31, 2011; 

     2. Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

     3. Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report; 

     4. Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financialreporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for theregistrant and have: 

     a)Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared; 

     b)Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused suchinternal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision,to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financialreporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes inaccordance with generally accepted accounting principles; 

     c)Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and 

     d)Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

     5. Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

     a)All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and 

 

----
Record of Discussion 

l I / lo15-Vk'-ool-ttD 

Docket No. FAA- dA0 \~ I .~CL Directorate Identifier: -AD 

With whom outside the FAA has this AD action been discussed (i.e., Design Approval Holder, 

manufacturer, ATA, NBAA, RAA, AOPA, ALPA, GAMA, etc)? 

ORGANIZATION PERSON CONTACTED DATE TOPICS DISCUSSED 

Other/Additional Information: No one, its not an AD yet. We discussed the problem, but there was 

no AD at the time. This is not the best question.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATE 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 (the
Report) on the Form 10-K of Oryon Holdings, Inc. (the Company) for the year ended December 31, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Mark E. Pape, Chief Accounting Officer, Chief
Financial Officer and Director, 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 and belief:

1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2. The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: March 7, 2013



|                                    
|------------------------------------
|/s/ Mark E. Pape                    
|Mark E. Pape                        
|Chief Accounting Officer,           
|Chief Financial Officer and Director
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT W.D. OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

BRIAN E SERJEANT,

Defendant.

Case No. CR06-5204

INITIAL ORDER RE:

ALLEGATIONS OF

VIOLATION OF

CONDITIONS OF

SUPERVISION

THIS MATTER comes on for an initial hearing on the Petition of the United States Probation

Office alleging that the defendant has violated the conditions of supervision.

The plaintiff appears through Assistant United States Attorney, Glen Templeton. 

The defendant appears personally and represented by counsel, Linda Sullivan. 

The U.S. Probation Office has filed a petition alleging violations of the terms and conditions of

 supervision, and the defendant has been advised of the allegation(s).

The court finds probable cause with regard to the allegation(s) and schedules a hearing on the

 petition to be held at the time and date below set forth before Judge Karen L. Strombom :

Date of hearing: Monday, August 21, 2006 

Time of hearing: 3:00pm

 IT IS ORDERED that the defendant:

( ) Be released on an appearance bond, subject to the terms and conditions set forth thereon.

(X) Be detained for failing to show that he/she will not flee or pose a danger to any other person

 or the community pursuant to CrR 32.1(a)(1), and CrR 46(c), to be delivered as ordered

 by the court for further proceedings.

The clerks shall direct copies of this order to counsel for the United States, to counsel for the

defendant, the United States Marshal and to the United States Probation Office and/or Pretrial Services

Office.

August 18, 2006.

__s/ Karen L. Strombom 

Karen L. Strombom, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cr-05204-KLS Document 12 Filed 08/18/06 Page 1 of 1
September 11, 1956

No. 60245.

protests 188729-K and 236474-K.

#### Vandergrift Forwarding Co. and Lasso Tapes, Inc. *v.*United States,

C. D. 1793. Motion of Government for rehearing denied.
Exhibit 32.1




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. § 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“Section 906”), Ross Lavnikevich and Rafael Abdurachmanov, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, respectively, of iGenii, Inc, certify that (i) the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 of iGenii, Inc fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and (ii) the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of iGenii, Inc as of the dates presented and the results of operations of iGenii, Inc for the periods presented.




/s/ Ross Lavnikevich


Ross Lavnikevich,


Chief Executive Officer




/s/ Rafael Abdurachmanov


Rafael Abdurachmanov,


Chief Financial Officer




Date: March 29, 2011




The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-K or as a separate disclosure document.




A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to iGenii, Inc and will be retained by iGenii, Inc and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
From: debchapa@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:54:26 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,

Debra Chapa

Wakefield, MA 01880
No. 59268.

protests 183038-K, etc. (Boston).

#### Pacific Mills, Worsted Division *v.*United States,

*233Opinion by

Wilson, J.

It was stipulated that for duty purposes the clean content of the wool in question was determined in accordance with the instructions contained in T. D. 53159, which was issued following *United States*v. *Fred Whitaker Company, Inc.*(40 C. C. P. A. 19, C. A. D. 492). In that case, it was held that the statutory language, clean content of wool, as used in paragraph 1102 (b), was construed to mean the product commercially usable as wool and from which all the weight of grease and foreign material has been removed, including the wool fibers which are unavoidably and irrevocably lost as a result of commercially applied cleaning processes. Accordingly, the wool in question was held dutiable at the rate applied by the collector on the basis of the percentages of clean content as set forth in the column headed “Clean Content T. D. 53159” in schedule “A,” attached to and made a part of the decision in this case.
No. 68181.

#### Vanetta Fabrics Corp. *v.*United States,

protests 60/17337, 60/17338, and 60/24762 (New York).

Opinion by

Bao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of waterproof cloth similar in all material respects to that the subject of *United States*v. *D. S. Grant & Co., Inc.*(47 CCPA 20, C.A.D. 723), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.