alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.9



SECOND AMENDMENT TO CONVERTIBLE PROMISSORY NOTE



This Second Amendment to Convertible Promissory Note (the Second Amendment) is entered into as June 7, 2010 by and between DIONICS, INC., a Delaware corporation (hereinafter called the Company), and BERNARD L. KRAVITZ (the Holder).



A.

On May 1, 2009, the Company issued to the Holder a Convertible Promissory Note in the aggregate principal amount of Two Hundred Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars and No Cents ($225,000.00), as amended on October 30, 2009 (hereinafter, as amended, the Note; all capitalized terms used in this Second Amendment which are not defined herein, but which are defined in the Note, shall have the respective meanings ascribed thereto in the Note).



B.

The Note currently provides that the conversion price shall be (i) $0.09 per share until October 30, 2010, (ii) $0.14 per share between October 31, 2010 and April 30, 2011, and (iii) $0.19 per share between May 1, 2011 and April 30, 2012.



C.

The parties desire to amend the conversion privileges contained in the Note to provide that the conversion price shall be $0.09 per share until April 30, 2011.



NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, of the mutual promises contained herein and of other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties, intending to be legally bound, hereby agree as follows:



1.

The first sentence of Section 1.1 of the Note is hereby deleted and the following is inserted in lieu thereof:



The Holder shall have the right from time to time, and at any time on or prior to the Maturity Date in respect of the remaining outstanding principal amount of this Note to convert all or any part of the outstanding and unpaid principal amount of this Note into fully paid and non-assessable shares of Common Stock, or other securities of the Company, at the conversion price (the Conversion Price) of (i) $0.09 per share of Common Stock in the event a Notice of Conversion (as hereinafter defined) is submitted prior to April 30, 2011, and (ii) $0.19 per share of Common Stock in the event a Notice of Conversion is submitted between May 1, 2011 and April 30, 2012.



2.

Except as otherwise provided in this Second Amendment, all of the terms, covenants and conditions of the Note shall remain in full force and effect.



3.

All references to the term Note in the Note shall be deemed to refer to the Note, as modified by this Second Amendment.



---

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



COMPANY:



DIONICS, INC.





By:

/s/ Bernard L. Kravitz

Name:

Bernard L. Kravitz

Title:

President



HOLDER:





/s/ Bernard L. Kravitz

BERNARD L. KRAVITZ



2
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-21-00041-CV

__________________

JOHN PRESTON BLALOCK AND JOHN PRESTON BLALOCK II, 

A/K/A BLALOCK HOUSEHOLD, Appellants

V.

MERCY WATER SUPPLY CORPORATION, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 258th District Court

San Jacinto County, Texas

Trial Cause No. CV16,563

__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On March 8, 2021, we notified the parties that the notice of appeal did not 

identify a judgment or appealable order. The appellee, Mercy Water Supply 

Corporation, filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The 

appellants, John Preston Blalock and John Preston Blalock II, a/k/a Blalock 

Household, filed a response to the Court’s jurisdictional inquiry, but did not identify 
2

any statutory basis for an accelerated appeal from an interlocutory order dismissing 

some, but not all of their claims.

Generally, appellate courts review only final judgments and interlocutory 

orders specifically made appealable by statute. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 

S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). An appeal from an interlocutory order may proceed 

as an accelerated appeal “when allowed by statute[.]” See Tex. R. App. P. 28.1. The 

appellants failed to identify a signed order by the trial court that they may appeal as 

an accelerated appeal. See generally Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014. 

We grant the motion to dismiss. The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on March 24, 2021

Opinion Delivered March 25, 2021

Before Golemon, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ.
#### Carl James GLISSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 67-198.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

March 19, 1968.

Walter E. Gwinn, Miami, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Jesse J. McCrary, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

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

PER CURIAM.

By an information the appellant was charged with operating a gambling house and with bookmaking. He was tried before the court and found and adjudged guilty. This appeal challenges only the conviction of operating a gambling house. That offense, as defined in § 849.01 Fla.Stat., F. S.A., is as follows:

> “Whoever by himself, his servant, clerk or agent, or in any manner has, keeps, exercises or maintains a gaming table or room, or gaming implements or apparatus, or house, booth, tent, shelter or other place for the purpose of gaming or gambling or in any place of which he may directly or indirectly have charge, control or management, either exclusively or with others, procures, suffers or permits any person to play for money or other valuable thing at any game whatever, whether heretofore prohibited or not, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison not exceeding three years, or by fine not exceeding five thousand dollars.”

The appellant contends, and we agree, that the evidence was insufficient to sustain that conviction. The evidence did not show that gambling had been habitually carried on in the house in question (Cohen v. State, Fla.App.1966, 189 So.2d *275948), or that the appellant was the owner or in control of the dwelling house which was a material element of the crime charged. No “gaming implements or apparatus” were found therein. See Cooper v. City of Miami, 160 Fla. 656, 36 So.2d 195. We pretermit, as unnecessary to this decision, comment on the legal effect of the fact that the appellant held and possessed a federal gambling stamp. See Marchetti v. United States, 390 U.S. 39, 88 S.Ct. 697, 19 L.Ed.2d 889.

For the reasons stated, the judgment and sentence of and for operating a gambling house is reversed.
EXHIBIT 32

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Vanguard Energy Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2014 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), Warren Dillard, the
Principal Executive and Financial Officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to the best of his 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.


Date: February 18, 2015                By:/s/ Warren Dillard
                                          -----------------------
                                          Warren Dillard,
                                          Principal Executive and Financial
                                             Officer
July 8, 2015

Mr. Nathan Drew

4020 Muskogee Ave.

P.O. Box 12241

Des Moines, IA 50312

Dear Mr. Drew:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your 

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your June 29th 2015, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-

2552), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does

not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request 

any further, you must send us all of the following:

• The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

• The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

• Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.
2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

 Airport Rules Division

Enclosure
EX-10.1



 Exhibit 10.1 

FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE 

AMENDED & RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT OF JANUARY 2012 

This First Amendment to the Employment Agreement among Pacific Continental Bank, Pacific Continental Corporation and Roger S. Busse, as amended
and restated as of January 31, 2012 (the “Agreement”) is made and entered into this 19th day of July, 2016. 
 In
consideration of the mutual covenants and promises contained herein and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby expressly acknowledged, the parties agree to amend the Agreement as follows, effective as
of the date hereof: 
 1. The first sentence of Section 9(b) of the Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows: 

“If, during the Term, the Bank or Corporation terminates Executive’s employment without Cause, or Executive terminates his employment
for Good Reason (defined below), the Bank will pay Executive: 
 (1) the base salary he would have been entitled to if his employment had not
terminated for a period of twelve months, and 
 (2) the greater of (a) $102,000 and (b) the amount of Executive’s most recent
annual cash incentive compensation payout pursuant to Section 6, in either case payable on the 90th day following termination of employment, and 

(3) if Executive timely elects to continue Executive’s medical, dental and vision benefits under COBRA (including, if applicable,
continuation of coverage for Executive’s spouse and dependents), then the entire amount of the monthly premium under COBRA under the Bank’s group plans for active employees and their dependents, if applicable, as along as Executive (or his
spouse and dependents, if applicable) remains eligible for COBRA, but not beyond twelve months following termination of employment, 

(collectively, the “Termination Payments”), provided that Executive shall be entitled to the payment and benefits described above if
and only if, within ninety (90) days after such termination of employment, Executive has executed and delivered to the Bank and Corporation the General Release substantially in form and substance as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto
and the General Release has become effective, and only so long as Executive has not breached the provisions of the General Release or breached the provisions of Sections 11 or 12 below, and any statutory or other rights that Executive may have to
revoke the General Release has expired prior to the end of the 90-day period.” 
 2. Except as expressly modified herein, the Agreement shall remain in
full force and effect. 
 [Signature page follows] 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have duly executed this First Amendment to the Agreement
in counterparts on the date first above written. 
 EXECUTIVE: 

 

	
	
	/s/ Roger S. Busse
	Roger S. Busse


 PACIFIC CONTINENTAL BANK: 

 

	
	
	/s/ Robert A. Ballin
	 By: Robert A. Ballin

Chairman of the Board



 PACIFIC CONTINENTAL CORPORATION: 

 

	
	
	/s/ Robert A. Ballin
	 By: Robert A. Ballin

Chairman of the Board
# C_2014262EN.01000601.xml

| 12.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/6

---

Notice concerning the implementation of Article 9a(7) of Regulation (EC) No 550/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the provision of air navigation services in the single European sky

(Publication of Member States' decisions establishing Functional Airspace Blocks)

(2014/C 262/06)

| Member State(s) | Reference | Name of functional airspace block | Entry into force |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Republic of Lithuania, Republic of Poland | State Agreement signed on 17 July 2012 | BALTIC FAB | 1 April 2014 |

Member State(s)

Reference

Name of functional airspace block

Entry into force

Republic of Lithuania, Republic of Poland

State Agreement signed on 17 July 2012

BALTIC FAB

1 April 2014

---
#### Thomas M. QUEHL, M.D., Petitioner, v. Lorenzo BRANNON, Respondent.

No. 71-60.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second Circuit.

July 2, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Certiorari denied.
#### Richard Eugene MOSLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-257.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Aug. 29, 1973.

Charles W. Musgrove, Public Defender, and Richard S. Power, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Nelson E. Bailey, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

OWEN, Chief Judge.

Appellant was convicted for possession of certain narcotic drugs and paraphernalia, which conviction necessarily had to be based upon constructive possession since there was no evidence of actual physical possession. The drugs and paraphernalia were seized pursuant to search warrant executed on an apartment leased to and occupied by appellant’s paramour. Although appellant also occupied the apartment sporadically, it was not in his exclusive possession and the State failed to present evidence to form a reasonable basis from which the inference could be drawn that appellant knew of the presence of the drugs and paraphernalia with the ability to maintain control over the same.

We conclude on the authority of Smith v. State, Fla.1973, 279 So.2d 27, Medlin v. State, Fla.App.1973, 279 So.2d 41, Griffin v. State, Fla.App.1973, 276 So.2d 191, Smith v. State, Fla.App.1973, 276 So.2d 91, and Frank v. State, Fla.App.1967, 199 So.2d 117, that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction and that the judgment and sentence should be and the same are severally reversed and appellant ordered discharged.

MAGER, J. and MORROW, RUSSELL O., Associate Judge, concur.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Department of the Navy

# AGENCY:

Department of the Navy, DoD.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Department of the Navy hereby gives notice of its intent to grant to Duchak Ventures, LLC, a revocable, nonassignable, exclusive license to practice in the field of use of respirator systems and safety applications; the field of use of filtering media within a respirator cartridge or respirator system and meant for human wear; and the field of use of air filter media for safety and hygiene applications in public, residential, industrial, and commercial facilities and structures, in the United States, the Government-owned invention described in U.S. Patent No. 7,749,438: Fluorophore Embedded/Incorporating/Bridged Periodic Mesoporous Organosilicas as Recognition Elements for Optical Sensors, Navy Case No. 097,345.//U.S. Patent No. 7,754,145: Fluorphore Embedded/Incorporating/Bridged Periodic Mesoporous Organosilicas as Recognition Photo-Decontamination Catalysts, Navy Case No. 097,346.//and any continuations, divisionals or re-issues thereof.

# DATES:

Anyone wishing to object to the grant of this license must file written objections along with supporting evidence, if any, not later than September 7, 2018.

# ADDRESSES:

Written objections are to be filed with the Naval Research Laboratory, Code 1004, 4555 Overlook Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20375-5320.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Amanda Horansky McKinney, Head, Technology Transfer Office, NRL Code 1004, 4555 Overlook Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20375-5320, telephone 202-767-1644. Due to U.S. Postal delays, please fax 202-404-7920, email:                         *techtran@nrl.navy.mil*                         or use courier delivery to expedite response.                    

Authority:35 U.S.C. 207, 37 CFR part 404.

Dated: August 20, 2018.

James Edward Mosimann III,

Lieutenant, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, Alternate Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 2018-18210 Filed 8-22-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
Exhibit 23.1



INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT




We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration  Statements No.
33-61025  and 333- 09131 on Form S-3,  and in the  Registration  Statements  No.
033-65439,  333-09133 and 333-69723 on Form S-8 of Del Global Technologies Corp.
and subsidiaries, of our report dated October 20, 1999, appearing in this Annual
Report on Form 10-K of Del Global  Technologies  Corp. and  subsidiaries for the
fiscal year ended July 31, 1999.








/S/DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
------------------------
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP


New York, New York
November 5, 1999
#### STATE of Florida ex rel. Arthur M. NEWMAN, III, Relator, v. Honorable James T. NELSON, as Circuit Judge in and for Volusia County, Florida, Respondent.

No. I-462.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. First District.

March 7, 1967.

Maurice Wagner, Holly Hill, for relator.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Reeves Bowen, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The application for rule nisi is hereby denied and the suggestion for writ of prohibition is hereby dismissed. State ex rel. Florida R. R. and Public Utilities Commission v. Taylor, 104 So.2d 745 (Fla.App. 1958); State ex rel. Paluska v. White, 162 So.2d 697 (Fla.App. 1964).

WIGGINTON, Acting C. J., and JOHNSON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 339 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 339

 To amend title 11 of the United States Code with respect to avoiding 
               certain liens that impair exempt property.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 5, 1993

Mr. Sarpalius introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 11 of the United States Code with respect to avoiding 
               certain liens that impair exempt property.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Secured Credit Availability 
Amendments of 1993''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS.

    Section 522 of title 11, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in subsection (f) by inserting ``and except as provided 
        in subsection (n)'' after ``exemptions'', and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(n) The debtor may not avoid the fixing of a lien on an interest 
of the debtor in property to the extent that such lien impairs an 
exemption to which the debtor would have been entitled under subsection 
(b)(2), if--
            ``(A) such lien is a nonpossessory, nonpurchase-money 
        security interest in any tools of the trade, implements, 
        animals, or crops; and
            ``(B) the State law referred to in such subsection 
        prohibits the debtor from avoiding the fixing of such lien to 
        such extent.''.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE; APPLICATION OF AMENDMENTS.

    (a) Effective Date.--Except as provided in subsection (b), the 
amendments made by section 2 shall take effect on the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
    (b) Application of Amendments.--The amendments made by section 2 
shall not apply with respect to cases commenced under title 11 of the 
United States Code before the date of the enactment of this Act.

                                 <all>
```