alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### WILLIAM B. KING’S Adm’r. *vs.*JOSHUA J. LAMBDEN and DANIEL HEARN.

A general avowry in replevin for rent in arrear may be proved generally, but if it set out a lease it must be proved accordingly.

This was an action of replevin by William B. King in his life time, to recover the possession of certain goods distrained by Hearn, as the bailiff of Lambden, for rent.

The defendants avowed the taking for rent in arrear and due, “ for a certain farm and premises in Nanticoke hundred, adjoining lands of 0. Isaacs, John Spicer, and others, commonly called the Fleet-wood farm, for one year from the 1st of January, 1843, at a rent of $110.” The defendants proved an agreement or lease for Lambden’s farm, called the Fleetwood land, adjoining Noble Conoway and others.

*Mr. Layton,*

argued that the party was bound to the same strictness in his avowry as would be required in an action founded on the lease, and a declaration thereon; and that there was a plain variance between the avowry and the lease; the one stating the premises as adjoining Isaacs, Spicer, and others; the other describing the premises as adjoining Conoway and others. *(Ros. Civ. Ev.*355.)

*Mr. Houston,*

said that the act of assembly authorized a general avowry without a particular description of the premises, and that there had been no particular description of the premises made in this avowry. The Conoway farm is described by other names in the avowry because Conoway has since died.

*Mr. Layton,*

agreed that there was no necessity of setting out a particular description of the premises; but whatever description is given must not be inconsistent with the lease referred to in the avowry.

*284
      *Layton,*for plaintiff.

*Houston,*for defendant.

*The*Court.

—The defendant has not avowed for rent due *under this lease,*and has made no reference to it whatever. If he had set it out in his avowry, or stated that the rent was due in pursuance of it, the objections now stated would be fatal as matters of variance; but the party is authorized by our act of assembly to avow generally without setting out the lease or agreement under which the rent is claimed. The defendant has done so here. He has avowed the talcing the goods for rent in arrear and due for a certain farm, &c. This he may prove by the produgfcjof a writtén lease or a paroi agreement; and if the paper now^^ed is for a different place than the one referred to in the avowry it proves nothing, but it is not objectionáble on any ground of variance from the avowry, because there is no reference to it in the avowry.

Lease admitted; exception prayed and granted.

Verdict for $41 59.
Exhibit 10.2


 


AMENDMENT
NO. 4 TO DEBENTURE


 


This
Amendment No. 4 to Debenture (this “Amendment”) dated this 15th day of January, 2021, by and among Bespoke Extracts,
Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”) and Berique Labs LLC, a Delaware corporation (the “Holder”).


 


WHEREAS,
the Holder is the holder of an outstanding original issue discount convertible debenture of the Company, in the outstanding principal
amount of $400,000, with an original issue date of December 24, 2019, as amended by Amendment No. 1 thereto, dated May 28, 2020,
Amendment No. 2 thereto, dated August 21, 2020, and Amendment No. 3 thereto, dated December10, 2020 (as amended, the “Debenture”);


 


WHEREAS,
the Company and the Holder desire to amend the Debenture as more particularly set forth below;


 


WHEREFORE,
the parties do hereby agree as follows:


 


1.
The last sentence of Section 1.1(a) of the Debenture is hereby amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows:


 


The
Conversion Price will be equal to $0.05 (subject to adjustment in all cases for stock splits, stock dividends, and similar transactions).


 


2.
Except as modified herein, the terms of the Debenture shall remain in full force and effect.


 


3.
This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which when so executed shall be deemed to be an original
and shall be binding upon all parties, their successors and assigns, and all of which taken together shall constitute one and
the same Amendment. A signature delivered by facsimile or email shall constitute an original.


 


[Signature
Page Follows]


 




     


     


    

 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the date first written above.


 


BESPOKE
EXTRACTS, INC.


 


	By:	/s/
    Danil Pollack	 
	Name:	Danil
    Pollack	 
	Title:	Chief
    Executive Officer	 
	 	 	 
	BERIQUE LABS LLC	 
	 	 	 
	By:	/s/
    Ber Mitchell	 
	Name:	Ber
    Mitchell	 
	Title:	Manager
# Factor Evaluation System - Position Evaluation Summary

                - Title:  Factor Evaluation System - Position Evaluation Summary 
                - Form #:         GSA5024      
                - Current Revision Date:  11/2017
                - Authority or Regulation: 

PDF versions of forms use Adobe      ReaderTM.      Download Adobe ReaderTM

Search for another form

Print PageEmail Page

Top
# Official Journal C 258/18 O

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 258 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 4818 October 2005 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 258

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 4818 October 2005

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Information |
| | Commission |
| 2005/C 258/1 | Euro exchange rates | 1 |
| 2005/C 258/2 | Summary information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1/2004 of 23 December 2003 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises active in the production, processing and marketing of agricultural products. | 2 |
| 2005/C 258/3 | Notice of the expiry of certain anti-dumping measures | 9 |
| 2005/C 258/4 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections | 10 |
| 2005/C 258/5 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections | 13 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Information

Commission

2005/C 258/1

Euro exchange rates

1

2005/C 258/2

Summary information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1/2004 of 23 December 2003 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises active in the production, processing and marketing of agricultural products.

2

2005/C 258/3

Notice of the expiry of certain anti-dumping measures

9

2005/C 258/4

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections

10

2005/C 258/5

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections

13

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
# C_2020209EN.01003701.xml

| 22.6.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 209/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.6.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/37

---

Action brought on 30 April 2020 — Stada Arzneimittel v EUIPO — Pfizer (RUXXIMLA)

(Case T-239/20)

(2020/C 209/48)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Stada Arzneimittel AG (Bad Vilbel, Germany) (represented by: J.-C. Plate and R. Kaase, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Pfizer Inc. (New York, New York, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark RUXXIMLA — Application for registration No 17 865 742

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 February 2020 in Case R 1879/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs, including the costs of the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs, including the costs of the appeal proceedings.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
No. 118.

#### J. O’Neal Sandel, Administrator, *v.*The State of South Carolina.

Error to the Supreme Court of the State of South Carolina.

Motion to dismiss or affirm submitted October 19, 1925.

Decided October 26, 1925.

*Messrs. Samuel M. Wolfe*and *A. M.,Lumpkin*for the' defendant in error, in support of the motion.

*Mr: William N. Graydon*for plaintiff in error, in opposition thereto.

*Per Curiam.*

Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of *Iowa Central Ry. Co.*v. *Iowa,*160 U. S. 389, 393; *Castillo*v. *McConnico,*168 U. S. 674, 683; *Rawlins*v. *Georgia,*201 U. S. 638; *Burt*v. *Smith,*203 U. S. 129, 136; *Standard Oil*Co. v. *Missouri,*224 U. S. 270, 281; *DeBearn*v. *Safe Deposit Co.,*233 U. S. 24, 34; *McDonald*v. *Oregon R. R. & Navigation Co.,*233 U. S. 665, 669-670; *Gasquet*v. *Lapeyre,*242 U. S. 367, 369, *370:*
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 173 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 173

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                          May 20, 1993.
    Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker 
may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule XXIII, declare the House resolved into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the 
joint resolution (S.J. Res. 45) authorizing the use of United States Armed 
Forces in Somalia. The first reading of the joint resolution shall be dispensed 
with. General debate shall be confined to the joint resolution and the 
amendments made in order by this resolution and shall not exceed one hour 
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
the Committee on Foreign Affairs. After general debate the joint resolution 
shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in 
order to consider as an original text for the purpose of amendment under the 
five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
Committee on Foreign Affairs now printed in the joint resolution. The committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. Points of 
order against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute for failure 
to comply with clause 7 of rule XVI are waived. No amendment to the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed 
in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each 
amendment may be offered only in the order printed, may be offered only by the 
named proponent or a designee, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable 
for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the 
proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment (except that pro 
forma amendments for the purpose of debate may be offered by the chairman or 
ranking minority member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs), and shall not be 
subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the 
Committee of the Whole. At the conclusion of consideration of the joint 
resolution for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the joint 
resolution to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any 
Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the 
Committee of the Whole to the joint resolution or to the committee amendment in 
the nature of a substitute. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 
on the joint resolution and amendments thereto to final passage without 
intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
Verizon North Inc.



EXHIBIT 12





COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES



|(Dollars in Millions)                                                                            |  | Six Months Ended June 30, 2003
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |  | ------------------------------
|                                                                                                
|Income before provision for income taxes and cumulative effect of change in accounting principle |  | $                             
|Interest expense                                                                                 |  |                               
|Portion of rent expense representing interest                                                    |  |                               
|Amortization of capitalized interest                                                             |  |                               
|                                                                                                 |  |                               
|Earnings, as adjusted                                                                            |  | $                             
|                                                                                                 |  |                               
|                                                                                                 | 
|Fixed charges:                                                                                   |  |                               
|Interest expense                                                                                 |  | $                             
|Portion of rent expense representing interest                                                    |  |                               
|Capitalized interest                                                                             |  |                               
|                                                                                                 |  |                               
|Fixed charges                                                                                    |  | $                             
|                                                                                                 |  |                               
|Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                                                               |  |                               
|                                                                                                 |  |
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FROM TEH
COMPANY'S FORM 10-K FOR THE THREE MONTH TRANSITION PERIOD ENDED 
DECEMBER 31, 1998, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH 
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                       2,423,204
<SECURITIES>                                 1,476,859
<RECEIVABLES>                               10,846,346
<ALLOWANCES>                                   409,000
<INVENTORY>                                  1,072,661
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            16,570,120
<PP&E>                                       1,592,577
<DEPRECIATION>                                 573,839
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              22,904,546
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       177,406
<OTHER-SE>                                  13,004,689
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                22,904,546
<SALES>                                     12,650,211
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            12,650,211
<CGS>                                       11,292,576
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               11,292,576
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             627,079
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,892,430)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,892,430)
<DISCONTINUED>                             (1,132,355)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (5,024,785)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.26)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.26)
        

</TABLE>
#### CITY OF BATON ROUGE v. Wayne P. MADERE.

No. 62035.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 5, 1978.

In re: Wayne P. Madere applying for supervisory writs. Parish of East Baton Rouge.

Denied.

DIXON, CALOGERO and DENNIS, JJ., would grant the writ.
#### BENJAMIN WEBB *vs.*JOSEPH PINDERGRASS’ Administratrix.

A colored person is competent to prove his book of original entries, to make it evidence in a suit, though against a white person.

A party may prove his book of original entries, whether kept by him or by another.

Assumpsit. In this case the administratrix, who was a colored woman, was offered to prove a book of original entries, kept by her for her husband, showing the number of bushels of ashes sold and delivered to B. Webb. Her testimony was objected to; 1st, as a person of color; and 2d, as incompetent to prove the books of her husband, except so far as she made the entries herself.

*By the*Court.

—The act of assembly of 1787, sec. 8, *(Dig.*407,) recognizes in colored persons the right to hold property, and to obtain redress in law and equity for any injury to person or property; and the act of 25 *Geo. 2, (Dig.*89,) as to articles properly chargeable in account, makes the oath of the *plaintiff,*together with a book regularly and fairly kept, evidence in all cases to charge the defendant. It would be idle to recognize in persons of color the right to hold property; and to obtain redress in law and equity for injuries to person or property; if the means of this redress be denied them. They could not file a bill in equity to obtain an injunction against a white man to stay any fraud or wrong; and, in cases of mutual dealings, though sanctioned by the law, the white man’s book would be evidence, and the black man’s good for nothing.

*440
      *Johnson, Bayard*and *Gilpin,*for plaintiff.

*Whitely*and *Rogers,*for defendant.

We think this woman competent, under the act of 1787, and from necessity, to prove the book of accounts of her husband; and the principle of this decision was ruled in this State as early as 1793, when upon the same principle of the “ right to obtain redress,” a colored person was allowed to • give evidence against a white man for an assault and battery; the court regarding this as one mode of redress. *(State*vs. *Bender,*3*Harr. Rep. 572, n.)*

As to the person who shall prove the books of original entry, the plaintiff may prove them generally, whether kept by him, or by a clerk or agent; and such is the constant practice.
# Consent of Surety and Increase of Penalty

                - Title:  Consent of Surety and Increase of Penalty 
                - Form #:         SF1415      
                - Current Revision Date:  10/2023
                - Authority or Regulation:  FAR (48 CFR) 53.228(l)
                - Special Instructions:   **Notice: This form is intended for use by government contractors and contracting personnel for compliance with and management of financial security requirements in Federal Government contracts. Any other use is void of purpose.** 

PDF versions of forms use Adobe      ReaderTM.      Download Adobe ReaderTM

Search for another form

Print PageEmail Page

Top
Jacket: 417-981S

Title:

Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Bid Opening: October 22, 2021 at 11:00am

Bid Terms Discounted Total

$162,681.70 0.5% 20 days $161,868.29

2022 NASA Planning Guide (English)

Contractor Name

consolidated Graphics - Westland 

Printers
# C_2020129EN.01001801.xml

| 20.4.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 129/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.4.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 129/18

---

Action brought on 20 February 2020 — Puigdemont i Casamajó and Comín i Oliveres v Parliament

(Case T-115/20)

(2020/C 129/23)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Carles Puigdemont i Casamajó (Waterloo, Belgium), Antoni Comín i Oliveres (Waterloo) (represented by: P. Bekaert, G. Boye and S. Bekaert, lawyers and B. Emmerson, QC)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the President of the European Parliament, as reflected in his letter of 10 December 2019, not to announce in Parliament and refer to the committee responsible the request for the defence of the immunity of the applicants lodged by Ms. Diana Riba i Giner on their behalf on 10 October 2019 pursuant to Rule 7(1) and (2) and Rule 9(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the President of the European Parliament, as reflected in his letter of 10 December 2019, not to announce in Parliament and refer to the committee responsible the request for the defence of the immunity of the applicants lodged by Ms. Diana Riba i Giner on their behalf on 10 October 2019 pursuant to Rule 7(1) and (2) and Rule 9(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on one plea in law, alleging that the President of the European Parliament’s decision not to announce the request for the defence of the immunity of the applicants in Parliament and refer it to the committee responsible infringed Rule 9(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, in connection with Article 343 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Articles 9 and 18 of Protocol (No 7) on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union (1), Articles 6, 39(2), 41 and 45 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, Article 2(1) of the Statute of Members of the European Parliament (2) and Rule 5(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament.

---

(1)  OJ 2012 C 326, p. 266.

(2)  Decision of the European Parliament of 28 September 2005 adopting the Statute for Members of the European Parliament (2005/684/EC, Euratom), OJ 2005 L 262, p. 1.

---