alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.7
 FIRST AMENDMENT
TO
AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE
 Amendment Seller Buyer
  Purchase Agreement
   Financing Contingency.
 Contracts.
 No Other Amendments .
 Counterparts.




---



##### 



SELLER:
    
    
    
    BUYER:NNN VF 901 CIVIC, LLC, 
a Delaware limited liability company
    
    
    
    /s/ Robert KoRobert KoBy:
    
    Grubb & Ellis Realty Investors, LLC,a Virginia limited liability company,Its Vice PresidentBy:
    
    /s/ Andrea R. BillerName:
    
    Andrea R. BillerTitle:
    
    Executive Vice PresidentNNN 901 CIVIC, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability companyBy:
    
    Grubb & Ellis Realty Investors, LLC,a Virginia limited liability company,Its ManagerBy:
    
    /s/ Andrea R. BillerName:
    
    Andrea R. BillerTitle:
    
    Executive Vice President
Exhibit 32  Section 1350 Certifications  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 Global Agri-Med Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Roger L. Fidler, President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 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; and  2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material aspects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  Date: November 15, 2006  /s/ Roger L. Fidler President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                               COUNTRY OR STATE /
NAME OF SUBSIDIARY                             PROVINCE OF INCORPORATION
------------------                             -------------------------
<S>                                            <C>
724 Solutions Corp...........................  Delaware
724 Solutions International SRL..............  Barbados
724 Solutions (UK) Limited...................  United Kingdom
724 Solutions SRL Holdco ULC.................  Nova Scotia
1345721 Ontario Limited......................  Ontario
Ezlogin.com, Inc.............................  California
YRLess Internet Corporation..................  Canada
Spyonit.com, Inc.............................  Delaware
Tantau Software, Inc.........................  Delaware
Tantau Software International, Inc. .........  Delaware
Tantau Software International, Pty Limited...  Australia
Tantau Software International Japan KK.......  Japan

</TABLE>
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRISTOPHER LEE JENKINS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2520 LKK JFM P

vs.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

On June 2, 2005, the undersigned issued an order denying plaintiff’s May 13,

2005 request for an extension of time to file a second amended complaint. On August 1, 2005,

plaintiff filed a request for reconsideration of that order. Plaintiff asks the court to reconsider his

amended complaint before forwarding the matter to the district court for consideration of this

court’s April 13, 2005 findings and recommendations.

However, the April 13, 2005 findings and recommendations were vacated by this

court’s July 28, 2005 order, and the court reviewed plaintiff’s June 6, 2005 amended complaint. 

Thus, plaintiff’s August 1, 2005 objections were rendered moot by the July 28, 2005 order.

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-02520-LKK -JFM Document 24 Filed 08/26/05 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

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s August 1, 2005 request

for reconsideration is denied as moot.

DATED: August 25, 2005.

/jenk2520.den

Case 2:04-cv-02520-LKK -JFM Document 24 Filed 08/26/05 Page 2 of 2
No. 52661.

petition 6555-R (San Diego).

#### Campillo & Ibarra *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

The petition was dismissed.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22

- 6678

THOMAS WALKER LABUWI, II,
Petitioner

- Appellant,

v. ERIC BRADLEY, Warden, Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Car o lina , at Raleigh

. Louise W. Flanagan , District Judge. ( 5:21

- hc

- 02210

- FL )

Submitted : March 16, 2023 Decided: March 21, 2023

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS , Circ uit Judges.

Vacated and remanded by un published per curiam opinion

.
Thomas Walker Labuwi, II , Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-6678 Doc: 9 Filed: 03/21/2023 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Thomas Walker Labuwi, II

— a federal prisoner who was convicted and sentenced
in the Eastern District of North Carolina but who is presently incarcerated in the Northern District of West Virginia

— filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in the North Carolina district

court , which the court denied . A distri ct court may only grant habeas relief within its jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § § 2241( a ) , 2242 ; Rumsfeld v. Padilla , 542 U.S. 426, 442

- 43 (2004). Because Labuwi is incarcerated in the Northern District of West Virginia , jurisdiction over his § 2241 petiti on lies in that district

— not in the district court below.
See Padilla , 542 U.S. at 442

- 4 4

. Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s order and remand for the district court to determine whether transferring Labuwi’s § 2241 petition would serve the inter est of justice,

see 28 U.S.C. §§ 1406(a), 1631, or whether the petition is more appropriately dismissed without prejudice to refiling in the appropriate district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma terials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED USCA4 Appeal: 22-6678 Doc: 9 Filed: 03/21/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
Exhibit 10.7

               ACT OF GOODS ACCEPTANCE (1) 0001-1 DATED 01/20/2015


FROM:                                                    TO:

NIMTECH CORP.                                            PAUL CAFETERIA
STR.100, EMIRHAN, 10/2, BLD. A,                          TESVIKIYE MH. 34365
SANLIURFA, TURKEY                                        SISLLI/ISTANBUL, TURKEY



QUANTITY                   DESCRIPTION                   PERCHASE ORDER NO. 0001
--------                   -----------                   -----------------------
25,000.00                  Paper cups                         USD 1,925.00


The commodity, which was adopted by the buyer in quality and range in compliance
with the understanding of the parties. The buyer has no claims to the acceptance
of the goods.



NIMTECH CORP.                                                     PAUL CAFETERIA
Exhibit 10.9(b)


 


AMENDMENT TO


WARRANT TO PURCHASE COMMON STOCK


 


This Amendment to Warrant to Purchase Common
Stock (this “Amendment”) is made and entered into effective as of the Effective Date (as defined below) by and
between Ekso Bionics Holdings, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), and each holder of an Agent Warrant
(as defined below) as of the Effective Date (each, a “Holder” and together, the “Holders”).
Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined herein shall have the same meanings as set forth in the Agent Warrants.


 


WHEREAS, the Company issued a series of
warrants of like tenor to purchase an aggregate of 3,030,000 shares of the Company’s
common stock (the “Warrant Shares”) to the placement agent and its sub-agents in the
Company’s private placement financing with respect to which closings occurred on January 15, 2014, January 29, 2014 and
February 6, 2014 and the Ekso Bionics, Inc. bridge financing completed in November 2013 (each
such warrant, an “Agent Warrant” and, together, the “Agent Warrants”);


 


WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 19 of the Agent
Warrants, any term of the Agent Warrants may be amended with the written consent of the Company and the Holders of Agent Warrants
exercisable to purchase a majority of the Warrant Shares (the “Requisite Approval”);


 


WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Agent
Warrants in order to remove any price-based anti-dilution provisions therefrom and in connection therewith is seeking the Requisite
Approval of this Amendment as provided herein.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual
covenants and conditions contained herein, the parties hereby agree as follows:


 


1. Adjustment of Exercise Price Upon
Issuance of Additional Shares of Common Stock. Section 3(b) of the Agent Warrants is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced
with the following: “[Reserved]”.


 


2. Necessary Acts. Each party to this
Amendment hereby agrees to perform any further acts and to execute and deliver any further documents that may be necessary or
required to carry out the intent and provisions of this Amendment and the transactions contemplated hereby.


 


3. Governing Law. This Amendment will
be governed by and construed under the laws of the State of New York without regard to conflicts of laws principles that would
require the application of any other law.


 


4. Continued Validity. Except as otherwise
expressly provided herein, the Agent Warrants shall remain in full force and effect.


 


5. Approval of Amendment. This Amendment
will become effective with respect to all outstanding Agent Warrants upon the execution of this Amendment by the Company and the
Company’s receipt of signed counterpart signatures from a sufficient number of Holders to obtain the Requisite Approval (the
“Effective Date”).
# C_2007290EN.01000901.xml

| 4.12.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 290/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.12.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 290/9

---

Final report of the Hearing Officer in Case COMP/M.3975 — Cargill/Degussa

(Pursuant to Articles 15 and 16 of Commission Decision 2001/462/EC, ECSC of 23 May 2001 on the terms of reference of Hearing Officers in certain competition proceedings — OJ L 162, 19.6.2001, p. 21)

(Pursuant to Articles 15 and 16 of Commission Decision 2001/462/EC, ECSC of 23 May 2001 on the terms of reference of Hearing Officers in certain competition proceedings — OJ L 162, 19.6.2001, p. 21)

(2007/C 290/08)

On 21 October 2005, the parties notified the transaction to Commission pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (the ‘Merger Regulation’), by which the undertaking Cargill would acquire the food ingredients business of the German company Degussa AG.

On 23 November 2005, the parties submitted a remedies proposal, thus extending the deadline for the end of the first phase investigation to 14 December 2005.

Upon examination of the evidence submitted by the parties to the proposed concentration and after conducting a market investigation, the Commission concluded that the concentration raised serious doubts as to its compatibility with the common market and decided to initiate proceedings under Article 6(1)(c) of the Merger Regulation on 14 December 2005.

Key documents were provided for review by the parties in accordance with the best practices on the conduct of EC Merger control proceedings on 19 December 2005 and 17 January 2006.

Following an in-depth investigation, the Commission services concluded that the potential competition concerns identified in the Article 6(1)(c) decision for the relevant markets were removed. Accordingly, no statement of objections was sent to the parties.

The case does not call for any particular comments as regards the right to be heard.

Brussels, 15 March 2006.

Karen WILLIAMS

---
#### ARRINGTON *v.*WARDEN, MARYLAND PENITENTIARY

[App. No. 1,

September Term, 1969.]

*Decided April 30, 1969.*

Before Hammond, C. J., and Barnes, Finan, Singley and Smith, JJ.

Per Curiam.

The application of Theodore R. Arrington for leave to appeal from denial of Post Conviction relief by Judge Joseph R. Byrnes on February 15, 1967 is denied. Each contention of applicant has either been decided against him in a previous post conviction hearing, *Arrington v. Warden,*232 Md. 672, or was properly decided against him by Judge Byrnes for the reasons set out in his opinion.

*Application denied.*
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v CHARLES WAYNE EAGLE, Seaman Recruit, U. S. Navy, Appellant

16 USCMA 247, 36 CMR 403

*248No. 19,290

April 29, 1966

*Captain L. G. Bohlen,*USMC, was on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant Jean E. Van Slate,*USNR, was on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Quinn, Chief Judge:

We granted the accused’s petition to await determination of United States v Surtasky, 16 USCMA 241, 36 CMR 397. On our decision in that case, we affirm the decision of the board of review here.

T , Judges Ferguson and Kilday concur.
No. 47426.

#### Protests 905219-G (B), etc., of Paul Puttmann (New York).

Opinion of

Kincheloe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of tracing cloth composed of cotton content and noncotton content and similar in all material respects to the merchandise passed upon in *Perseverance Import Corp.*v. *United States*(T. D. 49290), 54.81 percent of the weight being cotton and 45.19 percent sizing and/or other noncotton materials, the protests claiming duty on the actual weight of said long-staple cotton, exclusive of the sizing and other noneotton materials, were sustained but overruled in all other respects.
HYATON ORGANICS INC.



April 12, 2001

Mr. Kenenth Swaisland
The Samarac Corporation Ltd.
905 Kenwood Rd.
West Vancouver, B.C.
V7S 1T2

Dear Ken,

RE:	Advisory Agreement

This letter sets out the general terms and conditions of our agreement respecting the advisory services to be provided by The Samarac Corporation Ltd. on behalf of Hyaton Organics Inc.

1.	Hyaton to retain the advisory services of The Samarac Corporation Ltd. to act as its international strategic planner and to assist the Company to secure financing new business opportunities and further development of corporate matters under the
following general terms:

a)	This agreement shall be effective commencing April 1, 2001 for a term of 2 years.

b)	Samarac shall be paid a monthly fee equal to the sum of US$10,000.00 for the first year, to be renegotiated at the end of the first year for successive terms.  Should Hyaton lack sufficient funds to make timely monthly payments, Samarac has
agreed to accrue debt until such time as payment may be made by way of cash, or exchange for shares, or other such means, as may be mutually acceptable.

c)	All reasonable personal expenses incurred in the course of business on behalf of Hyaton, as pre-approved by the management of Hyaton.

d)	The parties agree to enter into a formal agreement respecting this transaction which formal agreement will contain all representations, warranties and conditions normally included in formal agreements respecting transactions of this nature and
all parties will be responsible for their own costs, including legal costs associated with this transaction.

e)	The agreement may be terminated at any time after 12 months by resolution of the Board of director's of Hyaton.

f)	The allocation of finder's fee warrants and employee incentive stock options may from time to time be negotiated as success fees against future achievement milestones, including but not limited to: the completion of new business acquisitions;
financing for working capital requirements; and the receipt of first revenues.

If these terms are acceptable, please indicate your agreement by signing below.  Upon receipt of the executed agreement, we will ask our lawyers to prepare a formal agreement to be completed within 60 days.

We look forward to a long and rewarding relationship.

Yours truly,

/s/ L. Andrew Schwab

L. Andrew Schwab
Director



AGREED AND ACCEPTED:



/s/ signed
Kenneth Swaisland
The Samarac Corporation Ltd.
Date
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. 

Wniteb ~tate~ (!Court of §ppenl~ 

for tbe jf ebernl (!Circuit 

INTERMEC TECHNOLOGIES CORP., 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

PALM, INC., 

Defendant-Appellee. 

2011-1296 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

District of Delaware in case no. 09-CV-0272, Judge Sue L. 

Robinson. 

ON MOTION 

ORDER 

Palm, Inc. moves for a 14-day extension of time, until 

August 4, 2011, to file its answering brief and Intermec 

Technologies Corp. moves for a 28-day extension of time, 

to file its reply brief after the date of service of Palm, 

Inc.' s brief. 

Upon consideration thereof, 
INTERMEC TECHNOLOGIES v. PALM INC 

IT Is ORDERED THAT: 

The motion is granted. 

JUL 1 9 2011 

Date 

cc: Carson P. Veach, Esq. 

Robert T. Haslam, Esq. 

s21 

FOR THE COURT 

/s/ Jan Horbaly 

Jan Horbaly 

Clerk 

2 

FILED u.s. COURT OF APPEALS FOR 

THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT 

JUL 1 920\1 

JAN.HORBAlY 

CLERK
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v VIRGIL L. HAMILTON, Private, U.S. Marine Corps, Appellant

18 USCMA 209, 39 CMR 209

No. 21,555

March 21, 1969

*Captain Frank A. Nelson,*JAGC, USN, was on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Colonel C. R. Larouche,*USMC, was on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

PER CüRiam:

We granted review in this ease to determine whether Article 38(b), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 838, had been complied with. The record reflects that, at the outset, a *pro forma*inquiry was made to determine whether the accused had been advised of his rights concerning counsel as set forth in Article 38 (b) of the Code.

In United States v Donohew, 18 USCMA 149, 39 CMR 149, decided March 7, 1969, we held that this type of inquiry constituted *minimal*compliance with Article 38(b). However, as we stated in *Donohew:*

> “We believe the seriousness of the situation dictates that *the record should contain the accused’s personal response to direct questions incorporating each of the elements of Article 38(b), as well as his understanding of his entitlement thereunder.*

> *“Accordingly, the record in each special or general court-martial convened more than thirty days after the date of this*[Donohew] *opinion should reflect this requirement has been met.*United States v Rinehart, *2108 USCMA 402, 24 CMR 212.” [Emphasis supplied in part.]

The decision of the board of review is affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION

Gene Hodges, Chief Executive Officer
of Websense, Inc., hereby certifies pursuant to the requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the
United States Code (18 U.S.C. Section 1350) that, to the best of his knowledge:



| | 1. | The Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Websense, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Websense, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2008 fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Websense, Inc. for the period covered by the Annual Report.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: October 28, 2009



By:

/s/    GENE
HODGESGene HodgesChief Executive Officer




|* | A signed original of this written statement has been provided to Websense, Inc. and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request. This written statement accompanies the Form 10-K/A to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of
Websense, Inc. under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
|- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee, v RONALD D. CIESLAK, Airman Third Class, U. S. Air Force, Appellant

13 USCMA 216, 32 CMR 216

No. 15,888

July 27, 1962

*Major Quincey W. Tucker, Jr.,*argued the cause for Appellant, Accused. With him on the brief was *Colonel Joseph E. Krysahowski.*

*Major James Taylor, Jr.,*argued the cause for Appellee, United States. With him on the brief was *Colonel Merlin W. Baker.*

Opinion of the Court

Ferguson, Judge:

The issues on which we granted accused’s petition for review in this case concern themselves solely with .trial counsel’s argument on the sentence, In his summation, he suggested that im*217position of a bad-conduct discharge would not necessarily cause accused’s punitive separation but could result in giving him “an opportunity to prove himself.” In addition, he drew attention to a defense exhibit, admitted without objection, in which accused’s commander recommended his retention in the service; characterized the letter as “hearsay;” and argued that the United States “did not have the opportunity of . . examining him in detail as to his opinion — if there were any exceptions to it — any additions or whether under the circumstances this is his true impression today.”

We need not inquire whether trial counsel’s argument was erroneous. While accused was sentenced to bad-conduct discharge, confinement at hard labor for six months, forfeiture of $50.00 per month for six months, and reduction to the grade of airman basic, the entire thrust of the remarks was calculated to obtain inclusion in the adjudged punishment of a punitive discharge. The supervisory authority’s action ordered the probationary suspension of that penalty for the period of confinement and four months thereafter. We are now advised that the bad-conduct discharge and the unex-ecuted portion of the adjudged confinement and forfeitures were remitted on June 7, 1962.

As we perceive no real difference between remission of a discharge and its disapproval, such action serves to remove any prejudice flowing from the trial counsel’s argument — assuming its impropriety — by complete elimination of that portion of the sentence to which his presentation addressed itself. United States v Johnson, 12 USCMA 602, 31 CMR 188. The questions before us are, accordingly, moot. United States v Fisher, 7 USCMA 270, 22 CMR 60; United States v Bedgood, 12 USCMA 16, 30 CMR 16; cf. United States v Prescott, 2 USCMA 122, 6 CMR 122.

The decision of the board of review is affirmed.

Chief Judge Quinn and Judge Kil-DAY concur.