alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
AMENDMENT
NO. 1


 


TO
THE


 


DIRECTVIEW
HOLDINGS, INC.


 


2014
INCENTIVE PLAN 


 


WHEREAS,
DirectView Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) has adopted the 2014 Incentive Plan of the Company (the “Plan”)
(capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meaning ascribed thereto in the Plan);


 


WHEREAS,
pursuant to Section 17.1 of the Plan, the Board of Directors of the Company (the “Board”) or the Compensation Committee
may amend, suspend or terminate the Plan or any portion of the Plan at any time and in such respects as it shall deem advisable;


 


WHEREAS,
the Board has determined it is advisable and in the best interest of the Company and its stockholders to amend the Plan by increasing
the number of shares authorized for issuance under the Plan to 50,000,000 shares of common stock, par value 0.0001 per share;


 


WHEREAS,
the Board now desires to amend the Plan to increase the number of shares authorized for issuance under the Plan (the “Amendment”);


 


NOW,
THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:


 


1.
Section 4.1 of the Plan is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows:


 


	SECTION
    	4.
    SHARES SUBJECT TO THE PLAN


 


	4.1	Authorized
    Number of Shares


 


Subject
to adjustment from time to time as provided in subsection 17.1, a maximum of 50,000,000 shares of common stock of the Company,
par value $0.0001 shall be available for issuance under the Plan. Shares issued under the Plan shall be drawn from authorized
and unissued shares or shares now held or subsequently acquired by the Company as treasury shares.


 


4.
This Amendment shall be effective as of the date this Amendment is authorized and approved by the Board.


 


5.
Except to the extent hereinabove set forth, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.


 


[
- Signature Page Follows -]


 



    	 	 	 



    	 	 	 



    




 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment is heretofore executed by a duly authorized officer of the Company on this 21st day
of October, 2016.


 


	 	DIRECTVIEW
    HOLDINGS, INC.
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ Roger
    Ralston
	 	Name:
    	Roger
    Ralston
	 	Title:
    	Chief
    Executive Officer


 


[
- Signature Page to Amendment to Plan - ]
#### R. J. MARSHALL, Appellant, v. C. B. SCOTT, Jr., d/b/a C. B. Electric, Appellee.

No. 72-515.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 16, 1973.

*547William E. Lowe, Palmetto, for appellant.

Charles H. McQuillan, Bradenton, for ap-pellee.

HOBSON, Judge.

A careful reading of the complaint shows that the allegations are not sufficient to state a cause of action for an equitable lien. Appellee did not allege lack of an adequate remedy at law, or special or peculiar equities justifying the imposition of an equitable lien; Wood v. Wilson, Fla. 1955, 84 So.2d 32; Crane Co. v. Fine, Fla. 1969, 221 So.2d 145. There was no mention of a written contract which showed an intention to charge the particular property with a debt or obligation; Jones v. Carpenter, 1925, 90 Fla. 407, 106 So. 127. Neither was there an allegation of ultimate facts showing mistake, fraud, misrepresentation of essential facts or other wrongdoing which would entitle appellee to an equitable lien; Merritt v. Unkefer, Fla.1969, 223 So. 2d 723; Phillips Petroleum Company v. Schun Co., Fla.App.1969, 222 So.2d 491; Jennings v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Co., Fla.App.1965, 177 So.2d 66.

Appellee did not allege ultimate facts showing appellant’s intention not to pay, or his insolvency or inability to pay, but merely alleged that appellant misrepresented that he would pay the contract price. This was not sufficient to state a cause of action for an equitable lien. The mere fact that a promise to pay is subsequently broken does not give rise to a cause of action for equitable relief. Otherwise any breach of contract would call for such a remedy. Prosser on Torts, 3rd Ed., p. 747; 37 Am. Jur., Fraud and Deceit, § 36, pp. 61 and 62.

We have carefully considered appellee’s point on appeal charging that the lower court erred in striking certain portions of its amended complaint, but find this contention to be without merit.

The order appealed is reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court with instructions to dismiss the amended complaint, without prejudice to the plaintiff to file an amended complaint.

Reversed and remanded.

MANN, C. J., and McNULTY, J., concur.
CRITICALSAMPLESUBMITTALFORM/CHAINOFCUSTODYRECORDSHIPTO:Client}\(.-o'""-'-Vw'lc-.<\c.'--""-...::.-sClientAddressCity,StateZipCodekfl>,"".Z.1'1-t-lI...G:o•t...N_iSampleID#IDescriptionMatrixDate1CBo2-15-t:iaZCo:".P02111'1\,Jw02-i1•52345678910PossibleHazardIdentification0Norfiarnmable21'Skinirritant0Poison0Unknown/'·-\o,,""'G=C1.<.\I'<;:.RelinqUishedByDateRelinquishedByDateComments:OB\)2.--<,Time13_5._Time\DOoTimeTimeDate3\13LsCarrier/WaybillNumber3521SilversideRoQuillenBuild.Suite1-1Will])iJ:In,DE19810246-0662--ChainofCustodyNumberCustomerProject/JobNumberSamp1edByAnalysisRequestedConditiononReceiptT"'-_k\"'>£>-0Other/additionalReceivedDateTime\()10$'"'ReceivedByDateTimeReceivedByDateTimeI-!
REGULATORY EVALUATION

Directorate Identifier: 2013-NM-258-AD

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific 

requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of 

transportation?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)
# Paul

# Hastings ATTORNEYS

Atlanta Beijtno Brussels Hong Kong London Los Angeles Milan New York Orange County Palo Alto Paris San Oiego San francisco Shanghai Stamford Tokyo Wasllin_g:ton. DC Paul, Hastings, Janofsky &Walker lLP 515 soulh Flower Streel· 25th Floor • Los Angeles, CA 90071-2228 telephone 213 683 6000 •facsimile 213 627 0705 • VI\WI.paulhasUngs.eom

(213) 683-6253 robertspan@paulhastings.com Decembet 15, 2005 VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL
Carlene V. Mcintyre, Esq. Chief, Opinions and Appeals Division The Port Authority ofNew Yo:tk and NewJersey 225 Park Avenue South, 15th Floor NewYork,NY 10003 Re: EWRRates and Changes Dear Carlene: 19978.00005

I have notreceived a response to my November 11, 2005lettcr to you regarding rates and charges at Newark Liberty International Airport ("EWR"). More than two months have now elapsed since my original letter requesting docli!Ilents andinformation. Please letme know as soon as possible when I may"expect to receive the information fit:st requested inmy October 11, 2005letter. 

# sm':Y(. Rolferfs.

# s;;:ltUv ofr AUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER LLP RSS:mc

LEGAL_US_W#53105181.' EXHIBIT UU
#### Samuel Clifton STROXTILE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1428.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

Nov. 15, 1967.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
# C_2014369EN.01002101.xml

| 17.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 369/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 369/21

---

Decisions in the context of the monitoring of the implementation of decisions regarding restructuring and liquidation aid for financial institutions

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2014/C 369/03)

| Date of adoption of the decision | 23.07.2013 |
| --- | --- |
| Reference number of the aid | SA.31646 (MC12/2010) |
| Member State | Germany |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | Sparkasse KölnBonn |
| Type of Decision | New decision related to the following Commission decision: C32/2009 (ex NN50/2009) |
| Content | Other adaptation |
| Other information | |

Date of adoption of the decision

23.07.2013

Reference number of the aid

SA.31646 (MC12/2010)

Member State

Germany

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

Sparkasse KölnBonn

Type of Decision

New decision related to the following Commission decision: C32/2009 (ex NN50/2009)

Content

Other adaptation

Other information

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm

---
Order filed, February 7, 2020

.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14

- 19

- 00975

- CR

____________

ARTHUR XAVIER GARCI A , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 458th District Court Fort Bend County, Te xas Trial Court Cause No. 17

- DCR

- 077068



### ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due February 3, 2020

. See Tex. R.

App. P. 35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the

record. The record has not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record

has not been filed timely, we issue the following order.

We order Gina Jackson , the court reporter, to file the record in this appeal

within 15 days of the date of this order

.

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Justices Zimmerer, Spain and Hassan.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Kaylen Dewayne Simmons v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-13-00930-CR

Trial court case number: 12-CR-2519

Trial court: 212th District Court of Galveston County

Appellant has filed a “Motion to Recall Mandate” because he has filed a Petition for Writ 

of Certiorari with the Supreme Court of the United States. The motion is granted. This Court 

orders that the Clerk of the Court withdraw the mandate issued on April 10, 2015.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Rebeca Huddle

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: May 5, 2015
# C_2014332EN.01000301.xml

| 24.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 332/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 332/3

---

Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries

2014/C 332/04

In accordance with Article 35(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), a decision has been taken to close the fishery as set down in the following table:

1

| Date and time of closure | 28.8.2014 |
| --- | --- |
| Duration | 28.8.2014-31.12.2014 |
| Member State | Ireland |
| Stock or group of stocks | BLI/5B67- |
| Species | Blue ling (Molva dypterygia) |
| Zone | Union and international waters of Vb, VI, VII |
| Type(s) of fishing vessels | — |
| Reference number | 30/TQ43 |

Date and time of closure

28.8.2014

Duration

28.8.2014-31.12.2014

Member State

Ireland

Stock or group of stocks

BLI/5B67-

Species

Blue ling (Molva dypterygia)

Molva dypterygia

Zone

Union and international waters of Vb, VI, VII

Type(s) of fishing vessels

—

Reference number

30/TQ43

---

(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.

1

---
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**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 accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of Reve Technologies, Inc. for the fiscal quarter ending June 30, 2014, I, Tamio Stehrenberger, Chief Executive Officer of Reve Technologies, Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:

 

|   | 1.     | Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the fiscal quarter ending June 30, 2014, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the fiscal quarter ending June 30, 2014, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Reve Technologies, Inc. |

 

 

| Dated: October 7, 2014 | By:    | */s/ Tamio Stehrenberger*                                                                             |   |
|------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                   |   | Tamio Stehrenberger, President, Principal Executive Officer, Principal Financial Officer and Director |   |
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 160 (Friday, August 17, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 41026]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-17792]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

26 CFR Part 1

[REG-131186-17]
RIN 1545-BO05


Proposed Removal of Temporary Regulations on a Partner's Share of 
a Partnership Liability for Disguised Sale Purposes; Hearing 
Cancellation

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Cancellation of notice of public hearing on proposed 
rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This document cancels a public hearing on proposed regulations 
concerning how partnership liabilities are allocated for disguised sale 
purposes.

DATES: The public hearing, originally scheduled for August 21, 2018 at 
10:00 a.m. is cancelled.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Regina Johnson of the Publications and 
Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel 
(Procedure and Administration) at (202) 317-6901 (not a toll-free 
number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A notice of proposed rulemaking and notice 
of public hearing that appeared in the Federal Register on Tuesday, 
June 19, 2018 (83 FR 28397) announced that a public hearing was 
scheduled for August 21, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. in the IRS Auditorium, 
Internal Revenue Service Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, 
Washington, DC. The subject of the public hearing is under section 707 
of the Internal Revenue Code.
    The public comment period for these regulations expired on July 19, 
2018. The notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of hearing 
instructed those interested in testifying at the public hearing to 
submit a request to speak and an outline of the topics to be discussed. 
The outline of topics to be discussed was due by August 3, 2018. As of 
August 3, 2018, no one has requested to speak. Therefore, the public 
hearing scheduled for August 21, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. is cancelled.

Martin V. Franks,
Branch Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing 
Division, Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration).
[FR Doc. 2018-17792 Filed 8-16-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
# NO LAND PIONEER COLL

23 July 2012

Administrator Lisa Jackson U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20460

re: EPA-R09-0AR-2012-002l, FRL

Dear Administrator Jackson: 

### Office ofthe President

On behalfofNorthland Pioneer College, I write to respectfully request an extension ofthe public comment period and the scheduling ofa public hearing in Navajo County for the EPA to receive regional input on the proposed haze plan recently proposed for coal-fired power plants in northeastern Arizona. The proposal, announced on July 2nd by the EPA, includes several rules that to my knowledge have not even been published in the Federal Register. Without appropriate review time, I do not feel! have an adequate opportunity to respond to either the public meeting in Phoenix or the written review period ending August 31. As these new rules may have considerable consequences for the college and the population it serves, I request adequate review time for appropriate consideration. It is virtually impossible to wisely assess the impacts the new rules may have without adequate time to examine the basis ofthe rules and potential to affect our communities.

The EPA has scheduled one public hearing on July 3 151in Phoenix and established a deadline for written comments on the proposed rule is August 31, 2012. I respectfully ask that you postpone the cunently scheduled July 31 s t hearing until a reasonable time after the rules are actually released, that the deadline for comments on the proposed rules be extended to 90 days after they
are actually published in the Federal Register and to schedule a public hearing in the NE Arizona Region. Appropriate review time and public hearings in our location will allow me, my college colleagues and others time to evaluate and respond from the perspective ofan education institution serving a rural and economically depressed region.

# ~ncerely,**"**

# A·==/&~ ;9JD



# A/**a,., ]."'JL(** **.** 

### w /1 .-1 I/'-! , .

## mme Swarthout, Ph.D. President Northland Pioneer College

Namjo ( :rnmr)' (**:mmmmit~·** C :ollege I)istriot Mailing Addres.1: J>.() Box 610, I/ollm)()k, AZ R6025-06 I0 Voice: 92/1-524-74 IH or H00-266-71145, ext. 74 U-l • Fax: 92R-S24-74 I9 • Ernoil:jeanne.swarthow@nflc edu

### cc: Gina McCarthy 

## IAssistant Administrator, U.S. EPA Office ofAir and Radiation 

## I USEPA Headquarters, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Mail Code 6101 A, Washington, DC 20460 Jared Blumenfeld\ Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region 9\75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105
July 6 , 2015

Mr. James Tiblier

2801 Denton Tap

#623

Lewisville, TX 75067

Dear Mr. Tiblier

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 No t Process Your Request

We entered your April 1 , exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA

- 20 15

- 088 9 ), but

we are unable to process your request any furthe r. The information you sent does no t 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 reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that i s, how it would

benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would no t adversely affect safety or how the exemption

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you

seek an exemption.

 Any addition al 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) require s you to send your

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

If We Do No t 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/

Brenda Robeson

Program Analyst , Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
Exhibit 10.171


AMENDMENT No. 4 

Crompton & Knowles Corporation
1988 Long Term Incentive Plan


     THIS AMENDMENT NO. 4 dated as of the 21st day of August,
1996, to the 1988 Long Term Incentive Plan, as amended (the
"Plan"), of Crompton & Knowles Corporation ("the Company"),
amends the Plan.

     WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan to increase
the number of shares available under the Plan. 

     WHEREAS, the stockholders of the Company on this date
approved the amendment of the Plan as hereinafter set forth. 

     NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is amended as follows:

1.   In accordance with Section 11 of the Plan, Section 4 of the
Plan shall be amended by replacing the number "4,000,000", which
number represents the shares available under the Plan, with the
number "10,000,000".

2.   The amendment set forth under item 1 hereof shall become
effective upon the execution of this amendment by the Company.

3.   Except as expressly hereby amended, the Plan is hereby
ratified and confirmed in all respects.  On and after the date
hereof, each reference in the Plan to "this Plan," "hereunder" or
words of like import shall mean and be a reference to the Plan as
amended hereby.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this instrument is duly executed as of
the date first set forth above.

Crompton & Knowles Corporation
By: /s/John T. Ferguson II
    John T. Ferguson II
    Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary
NO. 07-09-0110-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL D

AUGUST 17, 2009

______________________________

In the Interest of D.V., Jr., A.V. and A.V., Children

_________________________________

FROM THE 99th DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;

NO. 99-505,558; HONORABLE WILLIAM C. SOWDER, JUDGE

_______________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

 _______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ.

Helen Vela (appellant) filed a pro se notice of appeal seeking to alter the trial court’s

judgment on child support surplus. We dismiss the appeal. The clerk’s record was filed

with this court on April 6, 2009, and the reporter’s record on June 17, 2009. Appellant’s

brief fell due on July 20, 2009. It was not received, however. By letter dated July 30, 2009,

we notified appellant that the due date for the brief had lapsed, that the brief had not been

filed, and that no motion to extend the deadline had been received by the court. Citing

TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8, the letter also notified appellant that the appeal would be subject to

dismissal unless a response reasonably explaining her failure to file a brief was submitted

by August 10, 2009. To date, no brief or motion to extend the deadline has been filed. Nor

has the court received any explanation for the omission. 
2

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. TEX. R. APP. P.

38.8(a)(1); 42.3(b).

Per Curiam
#### Marshall Joseph HILL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-973.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 11, 1971.

Albert E. Schrader, Jr., Coral Gables, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, 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 indicted for the crime of rape. He was tried before a jury and *773found guilty with a recommendation mercy. He was adjudicated guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment. This appeal is from that judgment and sentence. of

The only point presented on appeal urges that the trial judge erred in denying appellant’s motion for a directed verdict of not guilty at the conclusion of the State’s case, because -the evidence was not sufficient to sustain a finding that the act was done against the will of the prosecutrix. The record reveals that the rape was accomplished at gun point during the perpetration of a robbery. There was abundant evidence that the victim was in fear of her life during the robbery and the assault. She was physically injured by appellant during the attempts preliminary to the penetration. We hold that the evidence clearly establishes that the victim submitted against her will and in order to save her life. There is no requirement that a victim of rape must resist as long as strength endures. Thomas v. State, Fla.1964, 167 So.2d 309.

Affirmed.