alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.28


 





 


August 7, 2017


 


Hightimes Holding Corp. 


250 West 57th Street, Suite 920


New York, New York 10107


 


	 	Re:	Loan and Security Agreement between ExWorks Capital Fund I, L.P. (“Lender”) and Hightimes Holding Corp. and its subsidiaries (“Borrowers”) dated February 27, 2017, as amended on or about the date hereof (the “Loan Agreement”).


 


Dear Sirs:


 


This letter is the
“Amended Fee Letter” as that term is defined in the Loan Agreement. Capitalized terms used in this Amended Fee Letter
without definition have the meanings given to them in the Loan Agreement.


 


This Amended Fee Letter
amends, restates and replaces (but does not extinguish the indebtedness and obligations under) the Fee Letter, dated February 27,
2017, between Borrowers and Lender (the “Original Fee Letter”). References to the Original Fee Letter in any
Loan Documents will be deemed to be references to this Amended Fee Letter.


 


If the Extension Conditions
are satisfied, no later than March 8, 2018 Parent will execute and deliver to Lender a warrant (the “Second Warrant”)
in the same form as the Warrant executed and issued on February 27, 2017 by Parent to Lender, The Second Warrant will entitle Lender
or its designee to purchase shares of the Class A Common Stock of the Parent equal to one and three-eighths percent (1.375%) of
the Class A Common Stock of the Parent deemed outstanding on the date of exercise of the Second Warrant. The Second Warrant is
a Loan Document. At the time of delivery of the Second Warrant, Parent must also deliver to Lender a resolution of its Board of
Directors authorizing the delivery and issuance of the Second Warrant. Failure to timely deliver the Second Warrant and the required
resolutions will be an Event of Default.


 


At the time the Loan
Agreement was executed, Borrowers agreed to pay Lender a one-time initial success fee of $1,200,000 on the sooner of (a) expiration
or termination of the Term, or (b) payment in full of all Obligations. This success fee was fully earned and nonrefundable as of
the date of the Loan Agreement and is an Obligation secured by the Collateral.


 


If the Extension Conditions
are satisfied, Borrowers will pay Lender a one-time extension fee of $600,000 on the sooner of (a) expiration or termination
of the Term, or (b) payment in full of all Obligations. This amendment fee will be fully earned and nonrefundable as of March 1,
2018 and is an Obligation secured by the Collateral.


 


This Amended Fee Letter
may only be modified in writing signed by all parties and is a Loan Document.


 


[Signature page follows]


 






     


     


    

 


[Signature page to
Amended Fee Letter]


 


Please indicate your agreement with the
above terms by signing below.


 


	 	 	 	
        Sincerely yours,

         

        ExWorks Capital Fund I, L.P.

          

	 	 	 	By:	 
	 	 	 	 	Andrew D. Hall
	 	 	 	 	Chief Credit Officer
	 	 	 	 	 
	
        Agreed:

         

        Hightimes Holding Corp.,

        for itself and as representative for the other Borrowers

         
	 	 	 
	By: 	 	 	 	 
	 	Adam Levin	 	 	 
	 	Chief Executive Officer
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

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

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

September 23, 2009 

l0916 

Order 

 

September 23, 2009 

138603 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 138603 

 COA: 281764 

Shiawassee CC: 07-005024-FC 

DAVID GADDIS STUCKEY, 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 19, 2009 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

 CAVANAGH, J., would grant leave to appeal.
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 12-208.1 

________________________________________________________________________ 

BOUNDARIES 

 Agreement Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and CUBA Extending the 

Provisional Application of the 

Maritime Boundary Agreement of 

December 16, 1977 

Effected by Exchange of Notes at 

Havana and Washington 

November 24, 2011 and February 8, 2012 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
CUBA 

Boundaries 

 Agreement extending the provisional application of the 

 maritime boundary agreement of December 16, 1977. 

 Effected by exchange of notes at Havana and Washington 

 November 24, 2011 and February 8, 2012; 

 Entered into force February 8, 2012; 

 Effective January 1, 2012.
#### John DUCAR et ux., Appellants, v. CITY OF LAKELAND, and Shell Wrecking Corporation, Appellees.

No. 71-910.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Nov. 22, 1972.

William A. Sweat, Jr., of Bentley, Miller, Sinder & Ellsworth, Lakeland, for appellants.

Stephen C. Watson, Asst. City Atty., Lakeland, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Elrod v. City of Daytona Beach, 1938, 132 Fla. 24, 180 So. 378.

HOBSON, A. C. J., and MANN and McNULTY, JJ„ concur.
#### ORLANDO UPHOLSTERY MANUFACTURING CO., Petitioner, v. FURNITURE FAIR OF AMERICA, INC., R. E. Ellis, individually, and R. E. Ellis d/b/a Ellis-Bryant Interiors, Respondents.

No. 71-578.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 23, 1971.

Certiorari dismissed.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 225 (Friday, November 21, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 62295]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-30646]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. OA96-154-001]


Central Illinois Public Service Corporation; Notice of Filing

November 13, 1997.
    Take notice that on July 9, 1997, Central Illinois Public Service 
Corporation tendered for filing its non-rate terms and conditions in 
the above-referenced docket.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 18 CFR 385.214). All such motions or 
protests should be filed on or before November 25, 1997. Protests will 
be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action 
to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to 
intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-30646 Filed 11-20-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
EXHIBIT 15.1







Deloitte & Touche LLP

5140 Yonge Street

Suite 1700

Toronto ON  M2N 6L7

Canada



Tel: 416-601-6150

Fax: 416-601-6151

www.deloitte.ca
 Consent of Independent Registered Chartered Accountants
 
 
 We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-172796 on Form F-3 of our report dated February 28, 2011, relating to the consolidated financial statements of Intellipharmaceutics International Inc. appearing in this Form 20-F for the year ended November 30, 2010.
 
 
 /s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
 
 Independent Registered Chartered Accountants
 Licensed Public Accountants
 Toronto, Ontario
 May 27, 2011
1

TTP Bridge Program Funds

3% set-aside from TTP

Funding 

Preliminary 

Engineering

( 15%)

Construction

( 85%)

Up to 80% for BIA

& Tribal bridges

Not less than 20% for

Non-BIA

Up to 80% for BIA

& Tribal bridges

Not less than 20% for 

Non-BIA

Not to exceed

$150,000 for each

project

Not to exceed

$150,000 for each

project

100% funding for BIA

& Tribal bridges

Not to exceed

$1million for each

project

Minimum

20% match required

Minimum

20% match required
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL

AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, 

v.

DENNIS PAUL EDDY, Petitioner. 

No. 1 CA-CR 17-0488 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Coconino County

No. CR1985-11929 

The Honorable Mark R. Moran, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Coconino County Attorney’s Office, Flagstaff

By William P. Ring

Counsel for Respondent

Dennis Paul Eddy, Buckeye

Petitioner

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Jon W. Thompson, Judge Peter B. Swann, and Judge James 

P. Beene delivered the decision of the Court.

FILED 2-20-2018
STATE v. EDDY

Decision of the Court

2 

P E R C U R I A M: 

¶1 Petitioner Dennis Paul Eddy seeks review of the superior 

court’s order denying his petition for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant 

to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1. This is the petitioner’s latest 

successive petition.

¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this Court will 

not disturb a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief. 

State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573, 576-77, ¶ 19 (2012). It is the petitioner’s 

burden to show that the superior court abused its discretion in denying the 

petition. See State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 537, 538, ¶ 1 (App. 2011). 

¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior 

court’s order denying the petition for post-conviction relief, and the petition 

for review. We find that petitioner has not shown an abuse of discretion. 

¶4 Accordingly, we grant review and deny relief.
16 September 2014

Larry McDonald 

Air Transportation Division/National 

Simulator Program Branch, AFS-205 

Federal Aviation Administration 

P.O. Box 20636 

Atlanta, GA 30320

Ref: Flight Simulation Training Device Qualification Standards for Extended Envelope and Adverse 

Weather Event Training Tasks Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Comment Period Extension

Alaska Airlines, respectfully requests that the Federal Aviation Administration grant an extension to the 

comment period for the Flight Simulation Training Device Qualification Standards for Extended Envelope 

and Adverse Weather Event Training Tasks Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published on July 10, 2014.

The proposed document consists of 293 pages, including Appendix A and Appendix B QPS requirements. 

The proposal includes cost and time estimates that Alaska Airlines needs to analyze based on information 

from internal sources such as training program requirements and external sources for data availability and 

implementation. In addition we need to carry out a thorough review of the proposed Appendix A and

Appendix B QPS requirement changes. Alaska Airlines requests that the comment period be extended by 90 

days.

Sincerely,

Nigel Sargent

Director, Flight Simulator Operations

Cc: Douglas Burton

Any safety-related, security-related and/or commercial information in this document is considered proprietary and is exempt from disclosure under the 

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) pursuant to applicable law, including 49 U.S.C. 40123, 14 CFR 193, 49 CFR 7.17. and 15 USC 552(b)(4). This document is 

released to the Federal Aviation Administration with an expectation of confidential treatment.

Form: NPRM Extension Page 1 of 1

Rev. A1 9/17/2014
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 196 

To prohibit the Central Intelligence Agency from using an unmanned aerial 

vehicle to carry out a weapons strike or other deliberately lethal action 

and to transfer the authority to conduct such strikes or lethal action 

to the Department of Defense. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 5, 2021 

Mr. BURGESS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and in addition to the Committee 

on Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 

Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within 

the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To prohibit the Central Intelligence Agency from using an 

unmanned aerial vehicle to carry out a weapons strike 

or other deliberately lethal action and to transfer the 

authority to conduct such strikes or lethal action to 

the Department of Defense. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 196 IH

1 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE 

2 AGENCY OPERATION OF UNMANNED AERIAL 

3 VEHICLE STRIKES AND TRANSFER OF AU4 THORITY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE. 

5 (a) PROHIBITION.—Notwithstanding any other provi6 sion of law, no officer or employee of, or contractor or 

7 detailee to, the Central Intelligence Agency shall use an 

8 unmanned aerial vehicle to carry out a weapons strike or 

9 other lethal action. 

10 (b) TRANSFER TO DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.— 

11 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the President 

12 shall transfer to the Department of Defense all authority 

13 to use an unmanned aerial vehicle to carry out a weapons 

14 strike or other lethal action. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED April 21, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-41300 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus RICARDO MARTINEZ-CANIZALES, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. M-03-CR-400-1

-------------------- Before JOLLY, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Ricardo Martinez-Canizales appeals his guilty plea conviction for knowingly importing into the United States more than five kilograms of cocaine. He argues that 21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846, 952, and 960 were rendered facially unconstitutional by Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000) . MartinezCanizales concedes that his argument is foreclosed by our opinion in United States v. Slaughter , 238 F.3d 580, 581-82 (5th Cir.No. 03-41300 -2- 2000). He raises the issue only to preserve it for Supreme Court review. A panel of this court cannot overrule a prior panel’s decision in the absence of an intervening contrary or superseding decision by this court sitting en banc or by the United States Supreme Court. Burge v. Parish of St. Tammany , 187 F.3d 452, 466 (5th Cir. 1999). No such decision overruling Slaughter exists. Accordingly, Martinez-Canizales’s argument is foreclosed, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
Exhibit 10.1


 





AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO CONVERTIBLE PROMISSORY
NOTES


 


This Amendment No. 1
to Convertible Promissory Notes (this “Agreement”)
is made as of January 29, 2018, by and among Bionik Laboratories Corp., a
Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and the subscriber(s) identified on the signature pages hereto
(each, a “Subscriber” and collectively, the “Subscribers”).


 


WHEREAS, the Company
and each Subscriber is a party to one of a series of a certain Subscription Agreement (the “Subscription Agreement”)
concerning the sale of up to US$14,000,000 in Convertible Promissory Notes (the “Notes”) from the Company;


 


WHEREAS, the Subscribers
have purchased Notes from the Company pursuant to the Subscription Agreement;


 


WHEREAS, Section
6.6 of the Notes, among other things, provides that the Notes may be amended with the written consent of the Company and the holders
of a majority in original aggregate principal amount of the Notes (a “Majority in Interest”);


 


WHEREAS, the Company
and a Majority in Interest of the Subscribers desire to amend certain provisions of the Notes to reflect an extension of the Maturity
Date (as defined in the Notes”), as set forth below.


 


NOW THEREFORE, the
Company and each Subscriber agree that the Original Agreement shall be revised as follows:


 


1.     The
definition of “Maturity Date” in each of the Notes shall be amended and replaced to read as follows:


 


“Maturity Date”
shall mean the earlier of: (a) March 31, 2018 and (b) the consummation of a Qualified Financing.”


 


2.     To
the extent that the Notes and/or the Subscription Agreement make any reference(s) to January 31, 2018, such reference(s) in the
Notes are hereby amended to read March 31, 2018.


 


Except as expressly reflected
herein, the Notes will remain in full force and effect. This Agreement is intended to be attached to and made a permanent part
of the Notes.


 


[Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank;
Signature Page Follows In Counterparts]


 




     


     


    

 


	Company:	 	BIONIK LABORATORIES CORP.
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	By:	/s/
    Eric Dusseux       
	 	 	Name:	
    Eric Dusseux
	 	 	Title:	CEO
	 	 	 	 
	Subscriber:	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	By:	/s/ 
	 	 	Name:	 
	 	 	Title:	 


 




    	 	2
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Dr. HP Jin, the chief executive officer of TeleNav, Inc. (the Company), certify for the purposes of 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,

(i) Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report of the Company
on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2012 (the Report), 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company.



By:

/s/    Dr. HP
JINDr. HP JinChairman of Board of Directors, President andChief Executive OfficerDate: September 11, 2012
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 Annual Report of China Food and Beverage Acquisition Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Chen Yi Quan, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:  (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 respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  /s/ Chen Yi Quan
Chen Yi Quan
Principal Executive Officer
March 31, 2010
Redacted by the U.S. Department of the Treasury
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 98-10230

Summary Calendar

_____________________

CURTIS JACKSON, JR.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

YAN TROKEL; LEW STERRETT JUSTICE

CENTER MEDICAL DEPARTMENT,

Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:97-CV-2922-R

_________________________________________________________________

October 27, 1998

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Curtis Jackson, Jr., Texas state prisoner #97004495, appeals

from the district court’s dismissal of his civil rights suit

brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Jackson argues, as he did

for the first time in his objections to the magistrate judge’s

report and recommendation, that the defendants were deliberately

indifferent to his serious medical needs. We have reviewed the

record and find no abuse of discretion by the district court. See

United States v. Riascos, 76 F.3d 93, 94 (5th Cir. 1996).
2

A F F I R M E D.
MIKE FULLER MOTOR SPORTS 

Page 37.1.642
Page 37.1.643
 

Page 37.1.644

 

MIKE HARVEY ACURA 

Page 37.1.646
 

Page 37.1.647
Page 37.1.648
 

Page 37.1.649