alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.1


 




Sport Endurance, Inc.


222 Broadway, 19th Floor


New York, NY 10038







January 17, 2018







Re: Sport Endurance, Inc. / Senior Secured Promissory Notes







Dear Sirs:







This letter agreement (the “Agreement”), by and between Sport Endurance, Inc. (the “Company”) and  _________, acknowledges that in exchange for good and valuable consideration, the Company and ________ agree to amend the terms of three Senior Secured Promissory Notes (the “Notes”) which ________ has acquired. Two of the Notes were issued by the Company to investors and the third was issued to ____________. They were due on December 27, 2017. In consideration of ___________ agreeing to waive the default under the Notes, the Company shall cancel the Notes and issue _________ a new Senior Secured Convertible Note in the principal sum of $542,343 (the “New Note”) payable on January 17, 2019 and convertible at $0.03 per share. The form of the New Note is annexed as Exhibit A.  The New Note shall be subject to the Security Agreement entered into by and between the Company and

___________, dated November 17, 2017.







____________ hereby waives that provision of the Notes providing for a default penalty.  Upon execution of this Agreement and execution and  delivery to __________ of  the New Note,  the Company is authorized to cancel the Notes.







Any number of counterparts of this Agreement may be signed and delivered, each of which shall be considered an original and all of which, together, shall constitute one and the same instrument. All terms not defined in this Agreement shall have the same meaning as in the New Note.







Please sign below evidencing your agreement to be bound by this Agreement and return it to us.











Very truly yours,












_________________________


David Lelong


President and CEO







We hereby agree to the foregoing:












By:


Its:







By: 


Name:


Title:
COURT OF A PPEAL S EI GHTH D I STRI CT OF TEXAS ELPASO, TEXAS
NATHA NI EL MAYB ERRY, Appellant,
v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
. § § § § § § No. 08-10-00077- CR

Appea l from the 112th J udicial District Court of Crocke tt Count y , Texas (TC# 2439)

MEMORAN DUM OP INION Pending be fore the Court is Appellant’s motion to withdraw his notice of a ppeal pur suant to T E X .R.A P P .P. 42.2(a). Appe llant has persona lly signe d his request a

nd has filed it prior to the appellate court’s de cision. See T E X .R.A P P .P. 42.2(a). F urther, a duplicate c opy

has bee n filed with this C ourt and ha s been f orwa rded to the tria l court cle rk. See id . As the motion complies with the require ments of Rule 42.2(a) , we GRAN T Appellant’s motion and dismiss the appea l.

Aug ust 18, 2010 DAVI D WEL L I NGTON CHEW, C hief Just ice Be fore Chew, C.J ., McClure, a nd Rivera, JJ
. (Do Not Publish)
Exhibit 99.2  CERTIFICATION OF THE PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER  I, Steven Rostowsky, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 40-F of Sprott Physical Gold Trust (the Trust);  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Trust as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4. The Trusts other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the Trust and have:  a)designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Trust, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  b)designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles:  c)evaluated the effectiveness of the Trusts disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  d)disclosed in this report any change in the Trusts internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by this annual report that has materially affected or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Trusts internal control over financial reporting.  5. The Trusts other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Trusts auditors and the audit committee of the Trusts board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):  a)all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Trusts ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b)any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Trusts internal control over financial reporting.   Date: March 28, 2013  /s/   STEVEN ROSTOWSKYSteven   RostowskyPrincipal   Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 218 (Wednesday, November 12, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 60700]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-29676]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. ER97-4683-000]


Ohio Edison Company; Pennsylvania Power Company; Notice of Filing

November 5, 1997.
    Take notice that on October 10, 1997, Ohio Edison Company tendered 
for filing an amendment 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 Procedures (18 CFR 385.211 and 18 CFR 385.214). All such motions or 
protests should be filed on or before November 14, 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 
proceedings. 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. 97-29676 Filed 11-10-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Exhibit 23.03

                        [Troy-Ikoda Limited letterhead]




                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS


We hereby consent to the use of the name Troy-Ikoda Limited and of references to
Troy-Ikoda Limited and to the inclusion of and references to our report, or
information contained therein, dated 29 January, 2004, prepared for FX Energy in
the FX Energy, Inc. annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended 31st December
2003, and the incorporation by reference to the report prepared by Troy-Ikoda
Limited into FX Energy, Inc.'s previously filed registration statements listed
below.


         Form                  SEC File No.              Effective Date
         ----                  ------------              --------------

         S-3                   333-80489                 June 30, 1999
         S-3                   333-104792                October 27, 2003
         S-3                   333-110345                November 18, 2003
         S-3                   333-112058                February 11, 2004
         S-8                   333-112717                February 11, 2004



Troy-Ikoda Limited

/s/ Francis Boundy
----------------------
Francis Boundy
Director
11 March 2004
#### NEHI BOTTLING COMPANY OF MIAMI et al., Petitioners, v. Lois RICHARDS et al., Respondents.

No. 40533.

Supreme Court of Florida,

Feb. 15, 1971.

Rehearing Denied March 22, 1971.

Certiorari denied.

ROBERTS, C. J., and BOYD, ADKINS, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
Cost for four additional ambient temperature sensors per refrigeration product test station

Assumptions

Use of thermocouples with copper weights.

Copper masses fabricated from purchased copper rod.

Four added sensors.

Sensors supported with vertical stand. New stand required due to higher maximum height (1 ft about top of unit rather than 

Existing Data Acquisition System Requires Expansion Module and software upgrade to accept four additional temperature inp

Equipment life 10 years, test capacity 30 per year.

MATERIALS

Item Number Unit Cost Total Cost

Copper Mass material 0.5 $ 61.13 $ 30.57

Thermocouples, Omega SA1XL-t-120-SRTC (5-pack) 0.8 $ 142.00 $ 113.60

Floor Stands 2 $ 49.99 $ 99.98

Data Acquisition Expansion Module 1 $ 789.00 $ 789.00

Updated Data acquisition software 1 $ 220.00 $ 220.00

Total, worst case $ 1,253.15

Total, no data acquisition expansion needed $ 244.15

LABOR

Task Hours

Prepare Copper weights from Copper Rod 2

Assemble Stands, hang and connect sensors 4

Software updating and debugging 4

Total 10

Cost at $25 loaded technician cost $ 250.00

Total, no Data acquisition expansion needed 6

Cost, no Data acquisition expansion needed $ 150.00

low high

Total Cost Range $ 394.15 $ 1,503.15

CALCULATION OF PER-TEST COST Notes

Number of Tests per test station 300 300 30 tests per year times 10 ye

Added cost per test $ 1.31 $ 5.01

COMPARISON OF ADDED COST TO FACILITY COST Notes/Source

Number of test stations per test chamber 4
Cost of chamber $ 128,000 Quote provide by CTS for Mo

Building Cost per square foot (US average warehouse) $ 100 RS Means

Chamber floorspace 375 15 ft x 25 ft

Building Cost $ 37,500

Total chamber/building cost $ 165,500

low high

Added cost as percent of chamber/building cost 1.0% 3.6%
bout top of unit rather than 3 ft above the floor).

r additional temperature inputs (worst case scenario)

Source

McMaster-Carr http://www.mcmaster.com/#8966k225/=rd0ys8

Omega http://www.omega.com/pptst/SA1XL.html

Staples http://www.staples.com/office/supplies/StaplesProductDisplay?storeId=10001&catalogIdentifi

Omega http://www.omega.com/pptst/OMB-DAQ55.html

Omega Information obtained on phone; Updated software to handle added sensor inputs.

30 tests per year times 10 years

Notes/Source
Quote provide by CTS for Morgantown WV refrigerator test facility

http://www.reedconstructiondata.com/rsmeans/models/warehouse/
eId=10001&catalogIdentifier=2&partNumber=218139&langid=-1&nAID=17588969&KPID=218139

 sensor inputs.
Exhibit
32(a)








This
Certification is being furnished and shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise
subject to the liability of that section.  This Certification shall
not be incorporated by reference into any registration statement or other
document pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933, except as otherwise stated in
such filing.








Certification
Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63


of Title
18 of the United States Code








In
connection with the Annual Report of Columbus Southern Power Company (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q (the “Report”) for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Michael
G. Morris, the chief executive officer of the Company certify pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 that, based on my knowledge (i) the Report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.








/s/ Michael G.
Morris  _


Michael
G. Morris


Chief
Executive Officer








August 4,
2009








A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
American Electric Power Company, Inc. and will be retained by American Electric
Power Company, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
#### Donald Wayne KING et al. v. LOUSTEAU AUTO SALES, INC., et al.

No. 62675.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 1, 1978.

In re: Donald Wayne King et al., applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit. Parish of St. John the Baptist. 359 So.2d 320.

Denied.

DIXON, J., would grant the writ.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2035 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to improve access to mental 

health services under the Medicare program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 18, 2021 

Ms. LEE of California (for herself, Mr. BISHOP of Georgia, Ms. MCCOLLUM, 

Mr. MEEKS, Mr. GRIJALVA, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN, 

Ms. SCANLON, Mr. TONKO, Mr. KILMER, Mr. TRONE, Mrs. AXNE, Mr. 

DEFAZIO, Ms. SEWELL, Mr. COHEN, Mr. CA ́RDENAS, Ms. NORTON, and 

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to 

the Committee on Ways and Means, 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 amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to improve 

access to mental health services under the Medicare program. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Improving Access to 

5 Mental Health Act of 2021’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2035 IH

1 SEC. 2. IMPROVED ACCESS TO MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES 

2 UNDER THE MEDICARE PROGRAM. 

3 (a) ACCESS TO CLINICAL SOCIAL WORKERS.—Sec4 tion 1833(a)(1)(F)(ii) of the Social Security Act (42 

5 U.S.C. 1395l(a)(1)(F)(ii)) is amended by striking ‘‘75 

6 percent of the amount determined for payment of a psy7 chologist under clause (L)’’ and inserting ‘‘85 percent of 

8 the fee schedule amount provided under section 1848’’. 

9 (b) ACCESS TO CLINICAL SOCIAL WORKER SERVICES

10 PROVIDED TO RESIDENTS OF SKILLED NURSING FACILI11 TIES.— 

12 (1) IN GENERAL.—Section 1888(e)(2)(A)(ii) of 

13 the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

14 1395yy(e)(2)(A)(ii)) is amended by inserting ‘‘clin15 ical social worker services,’’ after ‘‘qualified psychol16 ogist services,’’. 

17 (2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 

18 1861(hh)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

19 1395x(hh)(2)) is amended by striking ‘‘and other 

20 than services furnished to an inpatient of a skilled 

21 nursing facility which the facility is required to pro22 vide as a requirement for participation’’. 

23 (c) ACCESS TO THE COMPLETE SET OF CLINICAL SO24 CIAL WORKER SERVICES.—Section 1861(hh)(2) of the So25 cial Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(hh)(2)) is further 

26 amended by striking ‘‘for the diagnosis and treatment of 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2035 IH

1 mental illnesses (other than services’’ and inserting ‘‘(in2 cluding services for the diagnosis and treatment of mental 

3 illnesses or services for health and behavior assessment 

4 and intervention (identified as of January 1, 2021, by 

5 HCPCS codes 96150 through 96161 (and any succeeding 

6 codes)), but not including services’’. 

7 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

8 this section shall apply to items and services furnished on 

9 or after January 1, 2022. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 227 (Tuesday, November 25, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62796-62797]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-30920]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice No. 2654]


Shipping Coordinating Committee International Maritime 
Organization (IMO) Legal Committee; Notice of Meeting

    The U.S. Shipping Coordinating Committee (SHC) will conduct an open 
meeting at 10:00 a.m., on Thursday, December 4, 1997, in Room 2415 at 
U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, 2100 Second Street, S.W., Washington, 
D.C. The purpose of this meeting is to report on

[[Page 62797]]

the 76th session of the IMO Legal Committee, which was held October 13-
17, 1997, in London, regarding the provision of financial security for 
seagoing vessels (focussing on security for passenger claims), 
compensation for pollution from ships' bunkers, a draft convention on 
wreak removal, the carriage by sea of radioactive materials, and other 
matters. This meeting will also be a further opportunity for interested 
members of the public to express their views on whether the United 
States should ratify the 1996 Hazardous and Noxious Substances 
Convention, or the 1996 protocol to the Limitation of Liability for 
Maritime Claims convention of 1976, both adopted in London in May, 
1996.
    Members of the public are invited to attend the SHC meeting, up to 
the seating capacity of the room. For further information, or to submit 
views concerning the subjects of discussion, write to either Captain 
Malcolm J. Williams, Jr., or Lieutenant Commander Bruce P. Dalcher, 
U.S. Coast Guard (G-LMI), 2100 Second Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 
20593, or by telephone (202) 267-1527, telefax (202) 267-4496.

    Dated: November 20, 1997.
Russell A. La Mantia,
Chairman, Shipping Coordinating Committee.
[FR Doc. 97-30920 Filed 11-24-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-07-M
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7272

CARLTON LEWIS JOHNSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus D. A. GARRAGHTY, Chief Warden, Greensville Correctional Center, Respondent - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-97-662-AM) Submitted: March 11, 1999 Decided: March 17, 1999 Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carlton Lewis Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on July 31, 1998, the district court’s records show that it was entered on the docket sheet on Aug. 5, 1998. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date that the order was physically entered on the docket sheet that we take as the effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986). 2 PER CURIAM: Carlton Lewis Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and thedistrict court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Johnson v. Garraghty, No. CA-97-662-AM (E.D. Va. Aug. 5, 1998). * Johnson’s motions for a certificate of probable cause, appointment of counsel, and to compel are denied. We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE RENE GUARDADO,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General,

Respondent.

No. 21-763

Agency No. A029-169-067

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 12, 2023**

San Francisco, California

Before: S.R. THOMAS and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges, and RAKOFF***, 

District Judge.

Jose Rene Guardado petitions for review of an order of the Board of 

Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his motion to sua sponte reopen 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not 

precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, United States District Judge for the 

Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.

FILED

APR 14 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 Case: 21-763, 04/14/2023, DktEntry: 27.1, Page 1 of 2
2 21-763

proceedings.1 When the BIA denies sua sponte reopening, we have jurisdiction 

“for the limited purpose of reviewing the reasoning behind the decision[] for 

legal or constitutional error.” Cui v. Garland, 13 F.4th 991, 1001 (9th Cir. 2021) 

(quoting Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 588 (9th Cir. 2016)). 

The BIA did not err when it “decline[d] to exercise [its] sua sponte 

authority to reopen these proceedings because [Guardado] has not demonstrated 

prima facie eligibility for relief from removal.” Guardado’s aggravated felony 

conviction under California Health & Safety Code § 11352 means he is 

ineligible for the cancellation of removal relief he seeks. See 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1229b(b)(1)(C); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1240.66(a) (discussing special rule 

cancellation of removal under section 203 of the Nicaraguan Adjustment and 

Central American Relief Act). Guardado points to the later vacatur of his

conviction. But the BIA did not commit legal or constitutional error in denying 

sua sponte reopening on the basis that Guardado did not meet his burden of 

proving that his “conviction was vacated based on procedural or substantive 

defect in the underlying criminal proceedings, rather than for immigration or 

rehabilitative purposes.” See Ballinas-Lucero v. Garland, 44 F.4th 1169, 1171–

72 (9th Cir. 2022) (setting forth standard).

PETITION DENIED.

1 Guardado does not challenge the BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen as 

untimely. Such an argument is therefore forfeited. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 

706 F.3d 1072, 1079–80 (9th Cir. 2013).

 Case: 21-763, 04/14/2023, DktEntry: 27.1, Page 2 of 2