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


 


CURRENCYWORKS
INC.


AMENDMENT
TO SUBSCRIPTION AGREEMENT FOR UNITS


 


This
AMENDMENT (the “Amendment”), dated as of March 22, 2021, relates to that certain Subscription Agreement for
Units (the “Agreement”) made by the undersigned (the “Subscriber”) and CurrencyWorks Inc.
(the “Company”).


 


Capitalized
terms used herein without definition shall have the respective meanings provided therefor in the Agreement. The Company has requested
that the Subscriber agrees, and the Subscriber has agreed to, amend certain of the terms and provisions of the Agreement as follows:


 


	 	1.	The
    Agreement is hereby amended by deleting Section 2 in its entirety and replacing it with the following:


 


“2.
On the Initial Closing Date and subject to receipt of regulatory approval, the Corporation shall pay a commitment fee of $36,000
(the “Commitment Fee”).”


 


	 	2.	The
    Agreement is hereby amended deleting Section12 in its entirety and replacing it with the following:


 


“Subject
to receipt of regulatory approval, the Corporation may pay a fee as agreed to by the Corporation and the Subscriber on any Capital
Call (up to 8% of the amount of any Capital Call) provided that the payment of such fee does not result in the Unit Price (after
deducting the amount of such fee from the amount of the Capital Call and dividing such number by number of Units proposed to be
issued) being below the maximum Discounted Market Price (as such term is defined in the policies of the stock exchange upon which
the common shares of the Corporation are then listed).”


 


	 	3.	The
    Subscriber confirms that all representations, warranties, covenants and acknowledgement they made in the Agreement remain
    true and correct, and accurate in all material respects as of the date hereof. 


 


	 	4.	This
    Amendment will be governed by and construed in accordance with the law of British Columbia. This Amendment, read together
    with the Agreement, constitutes the entire agreement of the parties hereto with respect to the subject matter of this Amendment.
    This Amendment may be executed in several counterparts, each of which will be deemed to be an original and all of which will
    together constitute one and the same instrument. Delivery of an executed copy of this Amendment by electronic facsimile transmission
    or other means of electronic communication capable of producing a printed copy will be deemed to be execution and delivery
    of this Amendment as of the date first set forth above.


 


[Remainder
of this page left intentionally blank. Signature page follows.]


 




    	 	 	 



    	 



    

 


ACCEPTANCE


 


Accepted
and agreed by the Company and the Subscriber as of the 22nd day of March, 2021.


 


	CURRENCYWORKS
    INC.	 
	 	 
	Per:	/s/
    James Geiskopf	 
	 	Authorized
    Signatory	 


 


	GLOBAL EQUITY FUND INC.	 
	 	 	 
	Per:	/s/
    Travis Callaway	 
	 	Signature
    of Authorized Signatory	 
	 	 	 
	 	Travis
    Callaway, Authorized Signatory	 
	 	Name
    and Title of Authorized Signatory
**EXHIBIT 4.3**

----

****

**PERSONAL**

John Nelson  66 Lyford RoadLONDON  SW18 3JW

10 November 2004

Dear John,

I am writing to confirm that    the Board has agreed to extend your appointment for three years from 14 January    2005. Your appointment will continue in all other respects on the terms set    out in your letter of appointment dated 16 December 2003 including, in particular,    that either you or the Board may give the other at least three months’ written    notice to terminate the appointment at any time.

Please sign the attached copy    of this letter to confirm your acceptance of this extension on the above    terms and return the copy to me.

Yours sincerely,

/s/ Larry Stone

LARRY STONE

----

|            |              |
|-----------------|-------------------|
| To:   | Larry Stone       |
|            | Company Secretary |

I accept this extension of my    appointment on the above terms.

| /s/ John Nelson |  | 10/11/04 |   |
|-----------------|--|----------|--------|
|                 |  |          |   |
| John Nelson     |  | Date     |   |

 

| **Larry Stone**      Company Secretary      BT Group      BT Centre      81 Newgate Street      London EC1A 7AJ      United Kingdom | **tel** (020) 7356 5237**int** +44 20 7356 5237**fax** (020) 7356 6135**int** +44 20 7356 6135**e-mail larry.stone@bt.com** |   | **BT Group plc**    Registered Office:    81 Newgate Street, London EC1A 7AJ    Registered in England and Wales no. 4190816**www.btplc.com** |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

   

----

|  |
|--|
HeinOnline --- 42 Federal Register No. 81 page 21472 (1977)
HeinOnline --- 42 Federal Register No. 81 page 21473 (1977)
HeinOnline --- 42 Federal Register No. 81 page 21474 (1977)
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 98-1693WM

_____________

Danny Croman, *

*

Plaintiff-Appellant, *

*

v. *

* Appeal from the United States

City of Kansas City, Missouri; * District Court for the Western

* District of Missouri.

Defendant-Appellee, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Valissa Smith, Reporter, KCTV *

Channel 5; Anne Peterson, Anchor, *

KCTV, Channel 5, *

*

Defendants. *

_____________

 Submitted: November 2, 1998

Filed: November 9, 1998

_____________

Before FAGG, BEAM, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

_____________

PER CURIAM.

Danny Croman appeals the district court's adverse grant of summary judgment

in Croman's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit. Having carefully reviewed the record and the

parties' briefs, we conclude the district court's judgment was correct and no useful
-2-

purpose will be served by an extended discussion. We affirm substantially for the

reasons stated by the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### Gertrude Irene SIMMONS, Petitioner, v. BRADFORD-PRESCOTT, INC., Providence Washington Insurance Company, and the Florida Industrial Commission, Respondents.

No. 37348.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 5, 1968.

L. C. Schowe, St. Petersburg, for petitioner.

Donald V. Bulleit, of Fowler, White, Collins, Gillen, Humkey & Trenam, St. Peters-burg, Patrick H. Mears, Tallahassee, and J. Franklin Garner, Lakeland, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

By petition for a writ of certiorari we have for review an order of the Florida Industrial Commission bearing date February 26, 1968.

We find that oral argument would serve no useful purpose and it is therefore dispensed with pursuant to Florida Appellate Rule 3.10, subd. e, 32 F.S.A.

Our consideration of the petition, the record and briefs leads us to conclude that there has been no deviation from the essential requirements of law.

The petition is therefore denied.

The petition for attorney’s fees is also denied.

CALDWELL, C. J., and ROBERTS, DREW, ERVIN and ADAMS, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<CIK> 0000757262
<NAME> FNB BANKING COMPANY
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                      12,633,327
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                     106,297,660
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             3,950,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                  7,063,760
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      15,621,241
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        16,208,545
<LOANS>                                    106,694,884
<ALLOWANCE>                                  1,273,267
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             150,378,493
<DEPOSITS>                                 129,498,993
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          1,160,999
<LONG-TERM>                                  2,944,445
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       807,800
<OTHER-SE>                                  15,966,256
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             150,378,493
<INTEREST-LOAN>                             11,016,657
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            1,630,407
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               125,800
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                            12,772,864
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           4,257,069
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           4,377,980
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        8,394,884
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   31,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                              65,550
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              6,899,067
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,654,633
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   3,654,633
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,550,851
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     3.16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    6.47
<LOANS-NON>                                    677,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                   156,000
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             1,245,314
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  409,863
<RECOVERIES>                                   406,816
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            1,273,267
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         1,273,267
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
256 La. 624

#### Leonard CEASOR v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 50737.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

July 16, 1970.

In re: Leonard Ceasor applying for writ of habeas corpus.

The application is denied. The showing made does not warrant the exercise of our supervisory jurisdiction.
#### Cornelius BOONE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-472.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 8, 1970.

Hughlan Long, Public Defender, and Alan S. Becker, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Melvin Grossman, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and CHARLES CARROLL and BARKDULL, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was informed against, tried without a jury and found guilty of robbery. On this appeal he seeks reversal on a contention of insufficiency of the evidence, specifically as it related to the issue of identification. Examination of the record impels us to conclude that the contention is without merit.

Affirmed.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

In re: EXTREME TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,

Petitioner

______________________

2020-106

______________________

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United 

States District Court for the Southern District of Texas in 

No. 4:19-cv-01977, Judge Lynn N. Hughes.

______________________

ON PETITION

______________________

Before NEWMAN, LOURIE, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.

LOURIE, Circuit Judge.

O R D E R

Extreme Technologies, LLC petitions for a writ of 

mandamus that would direct intra-district transfer from

Judge Lynn N. Hughes to Judge Alfred H. Bennett, both 

of the United States District Court for the Southern 

District of Texas. Stabil Drill Specialties, L.L.C. opposes

the petition. Extreme replies. 

Extreme sued Stabil Drill for patent infringement in 

the Southern District of Texas. Shortly after the case was 

assigned to Judge Hughes, Extreme filed a notice of 

dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

Case: 20-106 Document: 17 Page: 1 Filed: 11/21/2019
2 IN RE: EXTREME TECHNOLOGIES, LLC

41(a)(1)(A)(i) and immediately filed the same complaint at

the United States District Court for the Western District 

of Louisiana. Several hours after the notice of dismissal 

was filed, Judge Hughes entered an order dismissing the

case without prejudice but stated that if the case is “refiled or removed to the Southern District of Texas, the 

case will be assigned to Judge Hughes.” 

Several months later, the Louisiana court transferred 

its case to the Southern District of Texas, noting the belief 

that Extreme was judge shopping when it voluntarily 

dismissed the case in Texas. Upon transfer, the case was 

initially assigned to Judge Alfred H. Bennett, but he

transferred the case to Judge Hughes. Extreme then 

moved to transfer back to Judge Bennett, which Judge 

Hughes denied. Extreme then filed this petition.

Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, available only 

where the petitioner shows: (1) a clear and indisputable 

right to relief; (2) there are no adequate alternative legal 

channels through which he may obtain that relief; and (3) 

the grant of mandamus is appropriate under the circumstances. See Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court for the Dist. of 

Columbia, 542 U.S. 367, 380–81 (2004). We cannot say 

that Extreme has met those requirements. 

Judge Bennett did not violate any clear and indisputable authority in transferring this case to Judge Hughes. 

To the extent that Extreme believed Judge Hughes exceeded his authority in issuing his initial order, it could 

have timely appealed from that decision but elected not to 

do so. Under the circumstances, granting this extraordinary relief would not be appropriate.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

Case: 20-106 Document: 17 Page: 2 Filed: 11/21/2019
IN RE: EXTREME TECHNOLOGIES, LLC 3

 FOR THE COURT

 November 21, 2019 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

 Date Peter R. Marksteiner

 Clerk of Court

s25

Case: 20-106 Document: 17 Page: 3 Filed: 11/21/2019
# C_2023063EN.01004901.xml

| 20.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/49

---

Order of the General Court of 14 December 2022 — ICA Traffic v Commission

(Case T-717/21) (1)

(Action for annulment - Public procurement - Negotiated procedure without prior publication of a contract notice - Supply of disinfection robots to European hospitals in the context of the COVID-19 crisis - Maximum quantity of goods to be supplied under a framework contract - Act forming part of a purely contractual framework - Act not amenable to review - Inadmissibility)

(2023/C 63/63)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: ICA Traffic GmbH (Dortmund, Germany) (represented by: S. Hertwig and C. Vogt, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Mantl, B. Araujo Arce and M. Ilkova, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the alleged decision of the Commission, made public in a press release of 21 September 2021, to order an additional 105 UV-disinfection robots for European hospitals (COVID-19).

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | ICA Traffic GmbH shall pay the costs, including those of the interim proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

ICA Traffic GmbH shall pay the costs, including those of the interim proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 2, 3.1.2022.

---
252 La. 173

#### FREESTATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY v. T & H, INC. and City of Shreveport.

No. 49231.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 17, 1968.

In re: T & H, Inc., and the City of Shreveport applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Parish of Caddo. 209 So.2d 568.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal there appears no error of law in its judgment.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Professional Veterinary Products, Ltd.
   /s/ Dr. Lionel L. ReillyDr. Lionel L. Reilly, President andChief Executive Officer/s/ Neal B. SoderquistNeal B. Soderquist, Chief Financial Officer andVice President
#### Virginia H. GRANGER, Appellant, v. The SCHOOL BOARD OF LEON COUNTY, Florida, Appellee.

No. R-149.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Jan. 16, 1973.

J. Marshall Gifford, Tallahassee, for appellant.

C. Graham Carothers, of Ausley, Ausley, McMullen, McGehee & Carothers, Tallahassee, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on authority of Buck v. McLean, 115 So.2d 764 (Fla.App. 1st, 1959), and Keggin v. Hillsborough County, 71 Fla. 356,71 So. 372 (1916).

RAWLS, Acting C. J., and WIGGIN-TON and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 99.2  Managements Report on Internal
Control
Over Financial Reporting  Barricks management is
responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over
financial reporting.  Barricks
management assessed the effectiveness of the Companys internal control over
financial reporting as of December 31, 2007. Barricks management used the
Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO)
framework to evaluate the effectiveness of Barricks internal control over financial
reporting. Based on that evaluation, Barricks management concluded that the
Companys internal control over financial reporting was effective as of December 31,
2007.  Based on Barrick
managements assessment, Barricks internal control over financial reporting is
effective as of December 31, 2007.  The effectiveness
of the Companys internal control over financial reporting as of December 31,
2007 has been audited by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, independent auditors, as
stated in their report which is located on pages 7880 of Barricks
Financial Report 2007.  77
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Nathaniel HARDY v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 53500.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 17, 1973.

In re: Nathaniel Hardy applying for remedial writs and writ of habeas corpus.

Writ denied. Relator had retained counsel. Entered into extensive plea bargaining. The colloquy recorded at the taking of the plea of guilty confirms a knowing and voluntary plea after complete legal consultation. The sentence of 18 years is correct.
**EXHIBIT 31(i)(b)****Certifications required by Rule 13a-14(a) and 15d-14(a)**I, Neal B. Soderquist, Chief Financial Officer, certify that:     1. Ihave reviewed this Amendment No. 2 to the quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of ProfessionalVeterinary Products, Ltd.;     2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report, as amended, does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this quarterly report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, resultsof operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisquarterly report;     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registration, and we have:     (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;     (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this quarterly report based onsuch evaluation; and     (c) disclosed in this quarterly report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s first fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):     (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and     (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date:September 7, 2005.          /s/ Neal B. Soderquist   Neal B. Soderquist, Chief Financial Officer
#### William Howard JONES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-951.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

July 18, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
252 La. 177

#### Olivia S. ROWE v. The TRAVELERS INS. CO.

No. 49214.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 17, 1968.

In re: Olivia S. Rowe applying for cer-tiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Calcasieu. 208 So.2d 39.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.