alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.3


 


BILL OF SALE


 


December 1, 2016


 


KNOW ALL PERSONS BY
THESE PRESENTS, that Coordinates Collection, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Seller”), a subsidiary of FD9
Group, B.V., has entered into that certain Asset Purchase Agreement with Reign Brands, Inc. (“Buyer”) and Reign Sapphire
Corporation dated as of the date hereof (the “Purchase Agreement”), providing for, inter alia, Seller’s
sale to Buyer of all right, title and interest in and to the Purchased Assets. Unless otherwise defined herein, all capitalized
terms used herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Purchase Agreement.


 


1.          Transfer
of Assets. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the Purchase Agreement, for good and valuable consideration, the
receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, Seller hereby sells, conveys, assigns, transfers and delivers to Buyer,
its successors and assigns, forever, all right, title and interest in and to the Purchased Assets.


 


2.          Further
Actions. At any time, and from time to time, after the date hereof, Seller shall execute and deliver or cause to be executed
and delivered to Buyer such other instruments and take such other action, all as Buyer may reasonably request, in order to carry
out the intent and purpose of this Bill of Sale.


 


3.          Representations
and Warranties; Conflict with Purchase Agreement. This Bill of Sale is subject to the representations, warranties and covenants
set forth in the Purchase Agreement. In the event of any conflict between the provisions hereof and the provisions of the Purchase
Agreement, the provisions of the Purchase Agreement shall govern. 


 


4.          Amendments
and Waivers. This Bill of Sale may be amended, modified, superseded, cancelled, renewed or extended, and the terms and conditions
hereof may be waived, only by a written instrument signed by Buyer and Sellers or, in the case of a waiver, by the party waiving
compliance.


 


5.          Governing
Law. THIS BILL OF SALE SHALL BE GOVERNED BY, AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH, THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, WITHOUT
GIVING EFFECT TO CONFLICT OF LAWS PRINCIPLES.


 


[Signature Page Follows]


 




    	 	 	 



     


    

 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
Sellers have executed this Bill of Sale effective as of the date first set forth above.


 


	SELLER:	 
	 	 
	COORDINATES COLLECTION, INC., a subsidiary of FD9 Group, B.V.	 
	 	 
	Signed:	 	 
	 	Name:  	 	 	 
	 	Title:   	 	 	 


 





[Signature Page to Bill of Sale]
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Chester MERCANDEL.

No. 59614.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 19, 1977.

Rena M. Price, Orleans Indigent Defender Program, New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Harry F. Con-nick, Dist. Atty., Donald T. Giglio, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
NUMBER 13-18-00616-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG 

 

ALLSTATE FIRE AND 

CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant,

v.

FERNANDO R. RODRIGUEZ AND 

GWENDLE GARZA, INDIVIDUALLY

AND AS NEXT FRIENDS OF 

DRAVEN RODRIGUEZ AND 

JOLIVIE RODRIGUEZ, MINOR CHILDREN, Appellees.

 

On appeal from the 24th District Court

of Victoria County, Texas.

 

ORDER OF ABATEMENT 

Before Justices Hinojosa, Perkes, and Tijerina

Order Per Curiam

The Supreme Court of Texas has requested briefing on the merits in response to 

a petition for review filed in Allstate Ins. Co. v. Irwin, ___ S.W.3d ___, No. 04-18-00293-
2

CV, 2019 WL 3937281 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Aug. 21, 2019, pet. filed). A petition for 

review has also been filed in Allstate Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Inclan, No. 13-19-00026-CV, 

2020 WL 373061, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Jan. 23, 2020, pet. filed)

(mem. op.). Both cases concern issues raised in the instant appeal. Judicial economy 

dictates that we should abate the instant appeal pending the potential guidance that the 

supreme court’s disposition of Irwin and Inclan may provide. The parties are assured that 

upon reinstatement they will be afforded an opportunity to brief what impact, if any, these 

two cases have on the instant appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is ABATED and removed 

from the Court’s active docket pending further order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the

21st day of August, 2020.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 34 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 H. R. 34

To amend title 38, United States Code, to extend eligibility for burial 
  allowance to certain additional veterans and to increase the burial 
             plot allowance for veterans from $150 to $300.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 5, 1993

Mr. Gilman (for himself and Mr. Faleomavaega) introduced the following 
     bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 38, United States Code, to extend eligibility for burial 
  allowance to certain additional veterans and to increase the burial 
             plot allowance for veterans from $150 to $300.

    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 ``Veterans' Burial Benefits Act of 
1993''.

SEC. 2. ELIGIBILITY FOR BURIAL ALLOWANCE.

    Subsection (a) of section 902 of title 38, United States Code, is 
amended to read as follows:
    ``(a) Where a veteran dies--
            ``(1) of a service-connected disability; or
            ``(2) who was--
                    ``(A) a veteran of any war;
                    ``(B) discharged from the active military, naval, 
                or air service for a disability incurred or aggravated 
                in line of duty; or
                    ``(C) in receipt of (or but for the receipt of 
                retirement pay would have been entitled to) disability 
                compensation;
the Secretary, in the Secretary's discretion, having due regard to the 
circumstances in each case, may pay a sum not exceeding $400 to such 
person as the Secretary prescribes to cover the burial and funeral 
expenses of the deceased veteran and the expense of preparing the body 
and transporting it to the place of burial. For the purpose of this 
subsection, the term `veteran' includes a person who died during a 
period deemed to be active military, naval, or air service under 
section 106(c) of this title.''.

SEC. 3. INCREASE IN THE BURIAL PLOT ALLOWANCE.

    Paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 903(b) of title 38, United States 
Code, are amended by striking out ``$150'' each place it appears and 
inserting in lieu thereof ``$300''.

                                 <all>
```
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 15, 2017

No. 04-17-00485-CV

Victor RAMOS,

Appellant

v.

Gustavo GUERRA, Jr. Individually,

Appellee

From the 406th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017CVT000103-D4

Honorable John D. Gabriel, Jr., Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant filed a notice of appeal in the trial court on July 12, 2017. On August 11, 

2017, appellant filed an affidavit of indigence. It is therefore ORDERED that the clerk of this 

court provide a copy of appellant’s affidavit to the other party, the trial court clerk, and the court 

reporter. It is FURTHER ORDERED that any objection to appellant’s indigence must be filed 

no later than ten days from the date of this order. If no objection is filed, the appellant will be 

deemed indigent for purposes of this appeal, and the trial court clerk and the court reporter will 

be required to file the clerk’s record and reporter’s record in this appeal without payment of costs 

no later than October 13, 2017.

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 15th day of August, 2017.

___________________________________

Luz Estrada

Chief Deputy Clerk
```

                                  Exhibit 32.2

                            Section 906 Certification
                           of David R. Schroder (CFO)
**CERTIFICATION 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 Annual Report of MACC Private Equities Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2003, as filed with the
United States Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, David R. Schroder, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

     (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

                                                       /s/ David R. Schroder
                                                   -----------------------------------
                                                   David R. Schroder,
                                                   Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer

Date: January 12, 2005
```
#### Charles Leonard TRUMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 45198.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 26, 1974.

Appeal dismissed. 291 So.2d 683.
# C_2014044EN.01002701.xml

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/27

---

Withdrawal of notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.7144 — Apollo/Fondo de Garantía de Depósitos de Entidades de Crédito/Synergy)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2014/C 44/12)

(Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004)

On 24 January 2014, the European Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration between Apollo Management LP (USA), Fondo de Garantía de Depósitos de Entidades de Crédito (Spain) and Synergy Industry and Technology, SA (Spain). On 7 February 2014, the notifying parties informed the Commission that they withdrew their notification.

---
#### Andre Murray RHYMES, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 42508.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 18, 1972.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 30, 1972.

Certiorari denied. 261 So.2d 527.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 23.4

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT

The Board of Directors and Stockholders
CarrAmerica Realty Corporation:

We have audited the consolidated balance sheets of CarrAmerica Realty
Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2001 and 2000, and the related
statements of operations, stockholders' equity and cash flows for each of the
years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2001. In connection with our
audits of the consolidated financial statements, we have also audited the
related financial statement schedule as of December 31, 2001. These consolidated
financial statements and financial statement schedule are the responsibility of
the Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these
consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule based on our
audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted
in the United States of America. Those standards require that we plan and
perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial
statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a
test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial
statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and
significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall
financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a
reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above present
fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of CarrAmerica Realty
Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2001 and 2000, and the results
of their operations and their cash flows for each of the years in the three-year
period ended December 31, 2001, in conformity with accounting principles
generally accepted in the United States of America. Also in our opinion, the
related financial statement schedule, when considered in relation to the basic
consolidated statements taken as a whole, presents fairly, in all material
respects, the information set forth therein.

KPMG LLP

Washington, D.C.
January 31, 2002, except as to note 3 which is
   as of March 13, 2002
No. 72-5732.

#### Dell *v.*Louisiana.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-6626

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

DENNARD HUTCHINSON, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District 

Judge. (3:03-cr-00145-HEH) 

Submitted: July 10, 2009 Decided: July 17, 2009 

Before GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Dennard Hutchinson, Appellant Pro Se. Roderick Charles Young, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

 Dennard Hutchinson appeals the district court’s order 

denying his motion for a reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 

U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find 

no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons 

stated by the district court. United States v. Hutchinson, No. 

3:03-cr-00145-HEH (E.D. Va. Oct. 30, 2008). We dispense with 

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before the court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

    We hereby consent to the use in this Registration Statement on Form S-1 of
our report, which includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the Company's
ability to continue as a going concern, dated March 29, 2000 relating to the
financial statements of HomeCom Communications, Inc., which appears in such
Registration Statement. We also consent to the reference to us under the heading
"Experts" in such Registration Statement.

                                        PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Atlanta, Georgia
August 28, 2000
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 11.1

                        HEALTH SYSTEMS DESIGN CORPORATION
                   COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE
                    (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER-SHARE AMOUNTS)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                             THREE MONTHS ENDED          NINE MONTHS ENDED
                                                                 JUNE 30,                    JUNE 30,
                                                          -----------------------   ------------------------
                                                             2000           1999        2000          1999
                                                          ---------     ---------   ----------    ----------
<S>                                                       <C>           <C>         <C>          <C>
Net income (loss)....................................     $ (3,852)     $    447    $    5,935    $     (752)
                                                          =========     ========    ==========    ==========

Weighted average common shares outstanding:
   Basic.............................................         6,747        6,713         6,741         6,698
                                                          =========     ========    ==========    ==========

   Fully Diluted.....................................         6,747        6,753         6,741         6,698
                                                          =========     ========    ==========    ==========

Net income (loss) per common share:
   Basic.............................................     $  (0.57)     $   0.07    $   (0.88)    $   (0.11)
                                                          =========     ========    ==========    ==========

   Diluted...........................................     $  (0.57)     $   0.07    $   (0.88)    $   (0.11)
                                                          =========     ========    ==========    ==========
</TABLE>


Net Income (Loss) Per Common Share:

   Basic net income (loss) per common share (Basic EPS) excludes dilution and is
computed by dividing net income (loss) by the weighted average number of common
shares outstanding during the period. Diluted net income per common share
(Diluted EPS) reflects the potential dilution that could occur if stock options
or other contracts to issue common stock were exercised or converted into common
stock. The computation of Diluted EPS does not assume exercise or conversion of
securities that would have an antidilutive effect on net income per common
share. In periods where losses are recorded, common stock equivalents would
decrease the loss per share and are therefore not added to the weighted average
shares outstanding.


                                       12
# C_2014258EN.01000101.xml

| 8.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 258/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 258/1

---

Invitation to submit comments on the draft Commission Regulation declaring certain categories of aid to undertakings active in the production, processing and marketing of fishery and aquaculture products compatible with the internal market in application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty

(2014/C 258/01)

Interested parties may submit their comments by 30 September 2014 to:

| European Commission |
| --- |
| Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |
| E-mail: mare-aidesdetat@ec.europa.eu |

European Commission

Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

E-mail: mare-aidesdetat@ec.europa.eu

The text is also available on the following website: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/maritimeaffairs_fisheries/consultations/block-exemption-regulation-2/index_en.htm

---
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 3496

To amend title 18, United States Code, to increase penalties for certain

arson and explosives offenses.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NOVEMBER 10, 1993

Mr. HOYER (for himself and Mr. WELDON) introduced the following bill;

which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend title 18, United States Code, to increase penalties

for certain arson and explosives offenses.

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

3 That section 844 of title 18, United States Code, is

4 amended—

5 (1) in each of subsections (f) and (i)—

6 (A) by striking ‘‘not more than ten years’’

7 and inserting ‘‘not less than 5 nor more than

8 20 years’’;
2

•HR 3496 IH

1 (B) by striking ‘‘not more than twenty

2 years’’ and inserting ‘‘not less than 10 nor

3 more than 40 years’’;

4 (C) by striking ‘‘or fined not more than

5 $10,000, or both’’ and inserting ‘‘and shall be

6 subject to a fine under this title’’;

7 (D) by striking ‘‘or fined not more than

8 $20,000, or both’’ and inserting ‘‘and shall be

9 subject to a fine under this title’’; and

10 (E) by inserting ‘‘not less than 20’’ after

11 ‘‘any term of years’’; and

12 (2) in subsection (h)—

13 (A) by striking ‘‘five years’’ and inserting

14 ‘‘10 years’’; and

15 (B) by striking ‘‘ten years’’ and inserting

16 ‘‘20 years’’.

Æ
#### William Shepard BOYD, etc., et al., Appellants, v. Moselle Boyd PEAVY, Appellee.

No. 77-2272.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 19, 1978.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 20, 1978.

Rollo E. Karkeet, Hernando, for appel- • lants.

Richard H. W. Maloy & Associates and John R. Lindsey, Coral Gables, for appellee.

Before HAYERFIELD, C. J., and PEARSON and KEHOE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The appellants were the respondents in the circuit court to a petition by the appel-lee to revoke the probate of a contested will and for probate of a prior will. The cause was tried before the circuit judge and extensive testimony was taken. At the conclusion of the trial, the circuit judge entered a full opinion in which he set out all the relevant facts, and held:

> “Although the evidence tends to support the contestant’s contention that the decedent was incompetent to make her new will, its weight is not sufficient to sustain a finding of incompetency at the time she executed her new will on November 4, 1976. In this connection, the attorney who drafted the decedent’s new will, and in whose presence she executed it in the nursing home, testified that in his judgment the decedent was competent to make a will. The other witness, the attorney’s legal secretary, also testified that she felt decedent was competent to make a will.

> “However, although the evidence is not sufficient to sustain a finding of incompetency at the time decedent executed her *997new will on November 4, 1976, the evidence amply shows that said will is invalid by reason of undue influence by the proponents.”

On this appeal, the appellants have presented three points, all of which depend for reversal upon a holding by this court that the evidence was either insufficient to establish undue influence or that the trial court misconceived the force and legal effect of the evidence.

It is unnecessary for us to set out in this opinion the lengthy findings of fact made by the trial judge. It is sufficient that we have reviewed the record in the light of the trial judge’s findings and appellants’ objections thereto, and have found that there is sufficient, competent evidence to sustain the judgment. See *In Re Auerbacher’s Estate,*41 So.2d 659 (Fla.1949).

Affirmed.