alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Filed by Automated Filing Services Inc. (604) 609-0244 - Worldbid Corporation - Exhibit 10.9





 EXECUTIVE CONSULTANT AMENDMENT AGREEMENT 

 This Executive Consultant Amendment Agreement (the "Agreement")
  dated for reference the 30th day of April, 2005 (the "Effective Date"), between
  WORLDBID CORPORATION, a Nevada corporation, (the "Company") and HOWARD
  THOMSON (the “Consultant”). 

 WHEREAS: 

 A.            The
  Company and the Consultant entered into an executive consultant agreement dated
  September 1, 2001, as amended on November 1, 2002 and August 29, 2003 (the “Executive
  Consultant Agreement”) whereby the Consultant has agreed to act as treasurer
  and chief financial officer of the Company and to provide consultant services
  to the Company for a consultant fee of US$3,000 per month.

 B.            The
  Company and the Consultant have agreed to extend the term of the Executive Consultant
  Agreement. 

 THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSES THAT: 

 1.            DEFINITIONS
  

 1.1          Capitalized
  terms used in this Agreement shall have the same meaning as specified in the
  Executive Consultant Agreement unless the context clearly indicates the contrary.

 2.            AMENDMENT
  

 2.1          The
  Term of the Executive Consultant Agreement is hereby extended on the same terms
  and conditions for further periods of one month each, unless either party provides
  the other party with a notice of non-renewal, which notice must be given no
  later than 10 days prior to the expiry of the Term. 

 2.2          The
  Consultant Fee payable by the Company to the Consultant pursuant to the Executive
  Consultant Agreement is hereby amended from US$3,000 per month to US$1,500
  per month effective as of the Effective Date. 

 3.            MISCELLANEOUS
  

 3.1          The
  Executive Consultant Agreement shall continue in full force and effect without
  amendment, other than expressly amended by this Agreement.

 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have duly executed
  and delivered this Agreement as of the date first written above. 

	 WORLDBID CORPORATION  	 	  
	 by its authorized signatory:  	 	  
	  	 	 
	/s/ Logan
      Anderson		 
	 Signature of Authorized Signatory  	 	  
	 Logan B. Anderson  	 	  
	 		 
	 		 
	 Name of Authorized Signatory  	 	  
	 President and CEO  	 	  
	 		 
	 		 
	 Position of Authorized Signatory  	 	  
	 		 
	 SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED  	 	  
	 BY HOWARD THOMSON in the presence of: 
    	 	  
	  	 	 
	/s/ Jane Thomson		 
	 Signature of Witness  	 	  
	  	 	 
	 Jane Thomson	 	/s/ Howard
      Thomson  
	 Name of Witness  	  	HOWARD THOMSON 
	  	 	 
	4734 S, Golf Course
      Drive

      Blaine, WA  98230	 	 
	 Address of Witness
Exhibit 32.1

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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months period ended September 30, 2008 of the MacroShares $100 Oil Up Trust (the "Registrant"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Quarterly Report"), I, Samuel Masucci, III, principal executive officer of MACRO Securities Depositor, LLC, which acts as the depositor for the Registrant (the "Depositor"), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.

The Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Registrant.

Date: November 14, 2008

| |                                                               
| | --------------------------------------------------------------
| | /s/ Samuel Masucci, III                                       
| | Samuel Masucci, III                                           
| | Chief Executive Officer of Depositor, 
on behalf of Registrant
11.Allphoto/videoflightswouldhavethedate,time,GPScoordinatesalong

withthecamerametadatarecordedinanin-appflightlogonthemobile

deviceservingasthein-flightmonitor.Thisflightlogrecordsflightpath,

altitude,flighttime,numberofimagesshot,amountofvideoshot,date,

time,andtotalflightdistance.Eachindividualflighthasthecapabilityof

playingback(in-app)inrealtimeandissyncedacrossdevicesviaDJI’s

in-appUserCenter.

12.GiventhesmallsizeoftheUASandtherestrictedsterileenvironment

withinwhichitwilloperate,Aerialpxl,LLC’soperationswill

adheretotheReformAct’ssafetyrequirements.

13.TheDJIInspire1willneverbeflownintheflightpathofmanned

aircraft.withthefirstconditionlisted,alwayskeepingavisuallineof

sight,beingofutmostimportancetoprovidingasignificantlevelof

publicsafety.

IrespectfullyrequestexemptionunderSection333toenableAerialpxl,LLC

tooperateefficient,limited,low-riskcommercialUAS

operationsfortheactivitiesstatedrespectingatalltimesthespaceand

privacyofcitizensandpropertywhilekeepingairspacesafe.

Respectfully,

Aerialpxl,LLC

5425PeachtreePkwySTE257

NorcrossGA30092

Phone:(404)518-9989

www.aerialpx.com
<PAGE>   1
                                                                 EXHIBIT 10.37.1

                                                  April 30, 1998

Robert L. Capizzi, M.D.
100 Turnbridge Circle
Haverford, PA  19041

      Re: Agreement dated as of March 4, 1996, as amended (the "Agreement")

Dear Dr Capizzi:

The purpose of this letter is to confirm our arrangements to extend your
consulting relationship with U.S. Bioscience by modifying the Agreement in
certain respects, as follows. All capitalized terms used, and not otherwise
defined, herein are used as defined in the Agreement.

As provided in the Agreement, your Consulting Term would terminate on May 31,
1998. We are very pleased that you have agreed with U.S. Bioscience to extend
the Consulting Term for an additional year, through May 31, 1999.

Except as modified by this letter, the parties agree that the Agreement is
confirmed to be and shall remain in full force and effect.

Please indicate your acceptance of the terms set forth in this letter in the
space provided below and return it to me. An additional executed copy of this
letter is enclosed for your file.

                              Sincerely yours,

                              U.S. Bioscience, Inc.


                              By: /s/ C. Boyd Clarke
                                  -------------------------------------
                                  C. Boyd Clarke
                                  President and Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>   2

Robert L. Capizzi, M.D.
April 30, 1998
Page 2


Accepted and agreed as of the 30th day of April, 1998:


/s/ Robert L. Capizzi
-----------------------
Robert L. Capizzi, M.D.
#### The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Terrance Wayne KERNS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 80SA319.

Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc.

June 1, 1981.

J. D. MacFarlane, Atty. Gen., Richard F. Hennessey, Deputy Atty. Gen., Mary J. Mullarkey, Sol. Gen., Morgan Rumler, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for plaintiff-appellee.

J. Gregory Walta, Colorado State Public Defender, Margaret L. O’Leary, Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, for defendant-appellant.

HODGES, Chief Justice.

Defendant Kerns appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to reduce sentence. He also asserts in this appeal that he is entitled to be resentenced in conformity with the amendatory legislation of H.B. 1589. We affirm.

The defendant was charged with possession of cocaine, section 12-22-302, C.R.S. 1973 (1978 Repl. Vol. 5), sale of cocaine, section 12-22-302, C.R.S.1973 (1978 Repl. Vol. 5), possession of cannabis, section 12-22-404(l)(a), C.R.S.1973 (1978 Repl. Vol. 5), and sale of cannabis, section 12-22-404(l)(a), C.R.S.1973 (1978 Repl. Vol. 5). In return for the defendant’s plea of guilty to one count of sale of cocaine, the remaining charges were dismissed. On May 12, 1978, the defendant was sentenced to a term of six to twelve years. Several months later, he filed a motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to Crim.P. 35(a).1 This motion was denied as was the defendant’s subsequent motion for reconsideration. On appeal, the defendant now argues that he is also entitled to be resentenced under the amendatory legislation of H.B. 1589.

In *People v. Malacara,*Colo., 606 P.2d 1300 (1980), we held that there is no right of appeal to the denial by a trial court of a Crim.P. 35(a) motion where the issue presented and resolved by the trial court concerns the propriety of the sentence. *See also People v. Foster,*Colo., 615 P.2d 652 (1980). The only issue presented to the trial court pertained to the propriety of the sentence. We therefore decline to consider this issue.

The remaining argument, presented for the first time on this appeal, that the defendant is entitled to be resentenced under H.B. 1589 has been rejected in *People v. McKenna,*Colo., 611 P.2d 574 (1980), and we continue to adhere to that decision. *See, e. g., People v. Trujillo,*Colo., 627 P.2d 737 (1981).

The judgment is affirmed.

1

. Crim.P. 35 has since been extensively amended effective November 13, 1979. *See*Crim.P. 35 (1980 Cum.Supp.).
#### In the Matter of Ella Barnes et al., on Behalf of Themselves and All Other Tenants of Frederick Douglass Houses, Similarly Situated, Petitioners, against New York City Housing Authority, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County,

March. 18, 1959.

*Luca, Per shy & Mo&er*for petitioners.

*Irving Wise, Harry Levy*and *Harold Weintraub*for respondent. , , ■ ■ ¡ , •

*671Edgar J. Nathan, Jr., J.

This petition under article 78 of the Civil Practice Act seeks to set aside a determination of respondent New York City Housing Authority. Petitioners claim that respondent’s across the hoard rent increase of $6 per apartment effective January 1, 1959 was arbitrary and capricious in that the increase was not based upon the standard previously used in determining rents, to wit, numbers of rooms, size of family and family income. In enacting the Public Housing Law, the Legislature did not fix any standards by which public housing rentals should be fixed but left that power exclusively with the authority. (Public Housing Law, § 154.) The local Housing Authority has not officially adopted any criteria which limits the exercise of their discretion in this field. Even had the authority adopted a firm policy in this regard nothing precludes them from changing such a policy, as long as it is consistent with the legislative intent, to provide housing at monthly rentals which low income groups can afford. Assuming the court could devise a more equitable distribution of the rent increase, it may not substitute its judgment for that of the administrative authority, where as here, the discretion of respondent was not exercised in an arbitrary or capricious manner.

Petition dismissed.
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.
 Small Business Administration [Disaster Declaration #13056 and #13057]
 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.
 ACTION: Notice.
 SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Indiana (FEMA-4058-DR), dated 03/22/2012. *Incident:*
                         Severe Storms, Straight-line Winds, and Tornadoes. *Incident Period:*
                         02/29/2012 through 03/03/2012. *Effective Date:*
                         03/22/2012. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         05/21/2012. *Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         12/24/2012.
 ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 03/22/2012, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of governmental nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: Primary Counties: Clark, Jefferson, Ripley, Scott, Washington. The Interest Rates are: Percent*For Physical Damage:*Non-Profit Organizations with Credit Available Elsewhere
3.125Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere
3.000*For Economic Injury:*Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere
3.000
 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 13056C and for economic injury is 13057C. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008) James E. Rivera, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.


[FR Doc. 2012-7650 Filed 3-29-12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
391 A.2d 694

#### Commonwealth v. Murray, Appellant.

Argued December 9, 1977.

James F. Geddes, Jr., with him Silverblatt & Townend, for appellant; Mark A. Ciavarella, Jr., City Solicitor, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

WATKINS, former P. J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
[No. 18461-3-II.

Division Two.

August 23, 1996.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Sharon K. Johnson, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Kit-sap County, No. 93-1-00947-8, Leonard W. Kruse, J., entered July 20, 1994. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Armstrong, J., concurred in by Bridgewater and Turner, JJ.
Exhibit 32.2

 

**Certification of President**

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of HyperSpace Communications, Inc. (the “*Company*”) hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:

 

(i) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2005 (the “*Report*”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

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

 
|   |              | By:    | /s/ Michael Adkins |
|--------|-------------------|--------|--------------------|
|   | November 11, 2005 |   | Michael Adkins     |
|   |              |   | President          |
**
**Exhibit 15.2**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in this Shell Company Report on Form 20-F of PropertyGuru GroupLimited of our report dated September 17, 2021, except for the change in composition of reportable segments discussed in Note 4 to the consolidated financial statements, as to which the date is December 7, 2021, relating to the financialstatements of PropertyGuru Pte. Ltd., which appears in the Registration Statement on Form F-4 (No. 333-261517) of PropertyGuru Group Limited. We also consent to thereference to us under the heading “Statement by Experts” in this Shell Company Report on Form 20-F.

 
/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLPSingaporeMarch 23, 2022**
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 36 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 36

  Authorizing the taking of photographs in the Chamber of the United 
                             States Senate.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 11, 1999

   Mr. Lott (for himself, Mr. Daschle, Mr. McConnell, and Mr. Dodd) 
 submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Authorizing the taking of photographs in the Chamber of the United 
                             States Senate.

    Resolved, That paragraph 1 of rule IV of the Rules for the 
Regulation of the Senate Wing of the United States Capitol (prohibiting 
the taking of pictures in the Senate Chamber) be temporarily suspended 
for the sole and specific purpose of permitting photographs to be taken 
on February 11 or 12, 1999, during the roll call vote on the Articles 
of Impeachment in the impeachment trial of the President of the United 
States.
    Sec. 2. The Sergeant at Arms of the Senate is authorized and 
directed to make the necessary arrangements therefor, which 
arrangements shall provide for a minimum of disruption to Senate 
proceedings.
                                 <all>
```
*This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of

the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court generally disfavors the citation of orders

and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions

of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

Filed 10/9/96

TENTH CIRCUIT

RONALD DEAN TUCKER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

and

BOBBERT S. COOK and BRIAN A.

WALKER,

Plaintiffs,

v.

HARVEY COUNTY DETENTION,

Defendant - Appellee.

No. 96-3020

(D. Ct. No. 95-CV-3493)

(D. Kan.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before TACHA, BALDOCK, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge panel

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material

assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th

Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
- 2 -

This action was brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by current and

former inmates of the Harvey County Jail in Newton, Kansas. In their pro se

complaint, these plaintiffs allege a series of violations of their constitutional

rights because of conditions of confinement in the Harvey County Jail. The

district court determined that none of plaintiffs’ allegations rise to the level of

alleging unconstitutional conditions in the Harvey County Jail. The district court

further found that plaintiffs’ allegations on appeal are legally frivolous and are

not taken in good faith pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). 

On appeal here, plaintiffs’ seek in forma pauperis status and renew their

allegations regarding substandard meals, lack of privacy, lack of sufficient

exercise, and various other conditions in the Harvey County facility. Plaintiffs

allege that the district court erred in finding that their complaint failed to state a

claim and reiterate their allegations that they have been denied their constitutional

rights because of the conditions to which they are allegedly subjected in Harvey

County Jail. Construing liberally the pro se plaintiffs’ complaint and allegations

on appeal, we agree with the district court that plaintiffs have failed to allege any

constitutional violations and that this appeal is legally frivolous. We therefore

DISMISS this appeal as frivolous and DENY leave to proceed in forma pauperis

on appeal. 
- 3 -

The mandate shall issue forthwith.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT,

Deanell Reece Tacha

Circuit Judge
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 149 Received in Senate (RDS)]

  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 149

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              June 6, 2001

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
  Permitting the use of the Rotunda of the Capitol for a ceremony to 
 present posthumously a gold medal on behalf of Congress to Charles M. 
                                Schulz.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That the Rotunda of the Capitol is authorized to be used on June 7, 
2001, for a ceremony to present posthumously a gold medal on behalf of 
Congress to Charles M. Schulz. Physical preparations for the

ceremony shall be carried out in accordance with such conditions as the 
Architect of the Capitol may prescribe.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 5, 2001.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-51373

Conference Calendar

ADAN CHAVEZ

Petitioner-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Respondent-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 1:07-CV-706

Before KING, BARKSDALE, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Adan Chavez, federal prisoner # 51181-079, appeals from the denial of his

28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, in which he challenged his sentence following his

convictions for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and

marijuana, possession with intent to distribute cocaine, and possession with

intent to distribute marijuana. The district court determined that Chavez’s

claims would be properly raised in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and that Chavez

could not proceed under § 2255’s savings clause.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 21, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-51373

2

Chavez asserts that he is “actually innocent” of the sentence he received

because the trial court calculated the drug quantity and imposed a role

enhancement by using a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard, that the court

wrongly denied him a minor-role reduction and imposed the supervisory

enhancement, and that he should have been sentenced to no more than 20 years

in prison based on the relevant quantity of cocaine. He maintains that he was

unable to raise his claims in his initial § 2255 motion because he was denied an

opportunity to respond to the Government’s answer in that proceeding. The

district court did not err in concluding that Chavez’s claims were not properly

raised under § 2241. See Tolliver v. Dobre, 211 F.3d 876, 877-78 (5th Cir. 2000).

To the extent that Chavez’s underlying arguments can be read as arising under

United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), and Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530

U.S. 466 (2000), he may not proceed under the savings clause of § 2255. See

Padilla v. United States, 416 F.3d 424, 427 (5th Cir. 2005); Wesson v. U.S.

Penitentiary Beaumont, TX, 305 F.3d 343, 347 (5th Cir. 2002).

Chavez also argues that he is entitled to relief under Amendments 706 and

709 of the Sentencing Guidelines, which he asserts were not available to him

earlier. We will not consider Chavez’s claims, raised for the first time before this

court. See Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co., 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir. 1999).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.