alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
10.1


 


AMENDMENT
#4


 


TO
THE $550,000 PROMISSORY NOTE DATED JANUARY 16, 2018


 


The
parties agree that the $550,000 Fixed Convertible Promissory Note (the “Note”) by and between Indoor Harvest Corp.
(the “Borrower”) and Tangiers Global, LLC (the “Lender”) is hereby amended as follows:


 


	1.	Payment.
                                         The Lender shall make a payment to the Borrower of $101,750 of Consideration ($92,500
                                         in cash and $9,250 in an OID) under the Note on or before July 27, 2018.



 


	2.	Use
                                         of Proceeds. The Company covenants that it will within, 1.5 month(s) of the
                                         Effective Date of this Consideration, it shall use approximately $92,500 of the
                                         proceeds in the manner set forth below (the “Use of Proceeds”):



 


$54,000
G&A, $25,000 accounting and legal and $13,500 misc.


 


	3.	Independent
                                         Transactions. The Borrower understands and agrees that the Note sets forth the terms
                                         for a series of independent transactions in which the Lender may elect to make a payment
                                         of Consideration to the Borrower with each payment of Consideration creating a separate
                                         obligation of the Borrower to the Lender with the terms set forth in the Note. Accordingly,
                                         the Maturity Date of each payment of Consideration, and the repayment terms for each
                                         payment of Consideration, are as set forth in the Note.



 


	4.	The
                                         Borrower confirms that it has not undertaken any capital raise, whether through debt
                                         or equity, with any other party since the Effective Date of the Note.



 


ALL
OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE NOTE REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT.


 


Please
indicate acceptance and approval of this amendment dated July 27, 2018 by signing below:


 


	/s/Chad
    Sykes	 	/s/Justin
    Ederle
	Indoor
    Harvest Corp.	 	Tangiers
    Global, LLC
	 	 	 
	By:	Chad
    Sykes	 	By:	Justin
    Ederle
	Its:	Principal
    Financial Officer	 	Its:	Managing
    Member
Breadcrumb

1. Home

2. Print 

3. Pdf 

4. Node 

5. Entity Print 

Pests No Longer Regulated at U.S.

Ports of Entry, FRSMP Program

Last Modified: 

Print

The Federally Recognized State Managed Phytosanitary (FRSMP) program provides a

process for APHIS, in close collaboration with the states, to re-categorize pests so

they no longer require action at ports of entry. 

To accomplish this, APHIS submits a proposal to the National Plant Board (NPB) to

change the regulatory status of certain insect and plant diseases. The NPB reviews

each proposal and must concur with the recommendation to change the pest’s

regulatory status. Copies of the NPB's decision letters are included below.

To be considered for re-categorization, the pest must be already established and

unlikely to cause additional harm to the U.S. agriculture, the environment or the

economy. During the evaluation process, PPQ examines a number of risk factors,

such as the probability that the pest could be effectively contained, excluded, or

eradicated under a phytosanitary program, and the potential impact of changing the

pest’s regulatory status on export markets. More information about the criteria used

to re-categorize pests can be found in the FRSMP Program Manual.

The following table lists all pests that have been re-categorized under the FRSMP

Program as non-actionable at U.S. ports of entry. However, some pests will remain

actionable at certain ports of entry in Hawaii, Puerto Rico or the U.S. territories of
Guam, the US Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Federated States of Micronesia,

Midway Islands, Northern Marianas Islands, Republic of Palau, and Republic of the

Marshall Islands.  For information on a pest’s status at ports of entry in specific U.S.

territories, email FRSMP@usda.gov.

Loading...

List of Pests No Longer Regulated at U.S. Ports of Entry
Annex 19

CHAPTER 15.1.

INFECTION WITH AFRICAN SWINE FEVER VIRUS

[...]

Article 15.1.2.

Safe commodities

When authorising importation or transit of the following *commodities*, *Veterinary Authorities* should not require any ASF-related conditions, regardless of the ~~ASF status~~*animal health status*of the *exporting country* or *zone*:

1)	heat-treated *meat**products*in a hermetically sealed container with a F~~0~~0 value of 3 or above;

2)	gelatine~~.~~;

3)extruded dry pet food;

4) 	*protein meal*.

Other *commodities* of suids can be traded safely if in accordance with the relevant articles of this chapter.

[...]

____________________________

Report of the Meeting of the WOAH Terrestrial Animal Health Standards Commission/February 2024	1
Breadcrumb

1. Home

2. Print 

3. Pdf 

4. Node 

5. Entity Print 

The Federally Recognized State

Managed Phytosanitary Program

Last Modified: 

Print

APHIS established the Federally Recognized State Managed Phytosanitary (FRSMP,

pronounced “free-stamp”) program to promote greater consistency in actions taken

against certain plant pests, whether those pests arrive at U.S. ports of entry or are

moving interstate.  

By better harmonizing import and interstate requirements, APHIS strengthens its

ability to advocate for safe, fair and reciprocal treatment of U.S. exports by our

trading partners.

Learn More

Information for Importers

Pests Regulated Under a FRSMP Program 

Pests No Longer Regulated at Ports of Entry 

Frequently Asked Questions for Importers 

For questions about EANs, please contact the APHIS office nearest your shipment's

port of arrival:
State Plant Health Directors

Plant Inspection Stations

Information for States

Petition Guidelines 

Federal Collaborator Plant Protection Act Training Workbook 

Plant Protection Act 

Pests No Longer Regulated at Ports of Entry 

Frequently Asked Questions for States 

Contact Us

For more information about the FRSMP program, or to submit a question, send an

email to:

FRSMP Program

Email: frsmp@usda.gov
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida 

Opinion filed September 4, 2024.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D23-0839

Lower Tribunal No. F14-16526A

________________

Albert Louis Barnes,

Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Charles 

Johnson, Judge.

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Susan S. Lerner, Assistant 

Public Defender, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and David Llanes, Assistant Attorney 

General, for appellee.

Before SCALES, MILLER and BOKOR, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.
2

Affirmed. See Miller v. State, 161 So. 3d 354, 363-64 (Fla. 2015) 

(holding, consistent with Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), that 

a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel must satisfy two criteria: 

counsel’s deficient performance and prejudice to the defendant); Melton v.

State, 949 So. 2d 994, 1004 (Fla. 2006) (holding that counsel is not deficient 

in failing to call witnesses who refuse to cooperate with the defense and are 

therefore unavailable for trial; Occhicone v. State, 768 So. 2d 1037, 1048 

(Fla. 2000) (“[S]trategic decisions do not constitute ineffective assistance of 

counsel if alternative courses have been considered and rejected and 

counsel’s decision was reasonable under the norms of professional 

conduct.”).
Breadcrumb

1. Home

2. Print 

3. Pdf 

4. Node 

5. Entity Print 

NVAP Reference Guide: Foreign

Animal Disease Preparedness and

Response Plan

Last Modified: 

Print

NVAP Reference Guide: Table of Contents

Questions, Comments, or Technical Issues?

NVAP Error Report Form

Preface

Introduction

Control and Eradication

Brucellosis

Johne’s Disease

Pseudorabies (PRV)

Tuberculosis

Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies

Scrapie

Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE)

Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD)
Poultry

National Poultry Improvement Plan (NPIP)

Avian Influenza (AI)

Exotic Newcastle disease (END)

Equine Disease

Aquatic Animal

Aquatic Animal National Health Plan

Aquatic Animal Health Activities

Animal Health Emergency Management

Animal Health Emergency Management

Emergency Response Structure

National Response Framework (NRF)

National Incident Management System (NIMS)

National Animal Health Emergency Management System (NAHEMS)

Foreign Animal Disease Preparedness and Response Plan (FAD PReP)

FAD Recognition and Initial Response

National Animal Health Emergency Response Corps (NAHERC)

Notifiable Diseases and Conditions

WOAH and International Standards

Cleaning and Disinfection

Importance of Cleaning & Disinfection

Cleaning

Disinfection

Regulation of Disinfectants

Safety

Disease Surveillance

Laboratory Submissions

Animal Movement

Interstate Regulations

Interstate Movement of Cattle, Horses, Swine, Sheep and Goats

Issuing Interstate Animal Movement Documents

International Animal Movement
Issuing International Health Certificates (IHCs) for Live Animal Movement

Common Problems Observed on Certificates for Live Animal Movement

Animal Identification 

Animal Identification

Cattle Identification

Swine Identification

Equine Identification

Sheep and Goat Identification

Fowl Identification

Compliance and Regulations

Appendix

A: 9 CFR PARTS 160, 161, and 162

B: APHIS VS District Offices

C: State Animal Health Officials

D: Forms

E: Other Organizational Information with Contact Points

F: Web Sites

G: Equine Teeth and Aging

The Foreign Animal Disease Preparedness and Response Plan (FAD PReP) was

developed by APHIS to provide a framework for FAD preparedness and response.

The FAD PReP is intended to integrate and synchronize the principles and applied

systems of the NRF and the NIMS by providing outbreak goals, guidelines, strategies,

and procedures for local, State, Federal, and Tribal responders in one “toolbox.” 

The FAD PReP documents include NAHEMS guidelines for general veterinary

activities, disease specific response plans, industry or facility manuals aimed for

industry stakeholders, standard operating procedures and checklists for planners

and responders, and continuity of business plans that are “ready to go” for exercises

and outbreaks.
Breadcrumb

1. Home

2. Print 

3. Pdf 

4. Node 

5. Entity Print 

Bring a Pet Cat (Domestic) into the

United States

Last Modified: 

Print

APHIS Veterinary Services does not have any animal health requirements related to

bringing (importing) a pet cat into the United States from a foreign country. See

below to view other requirements for bringing pet cats into the United States from

another country.
Other Federal Agency Requirements

Check with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service. These agencies may have regulations related to importing a cat into

the United States.

U.S. State and Territory Requirements

Domestic movement requirements are set by the receiving State or Territory.

Visit the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture to find your

destination's agriculture department and check its website for requirements.

For questions or clarification on any of the requirements, contact the State or

Territorial veterinarian's office.
EXHIBIT 23

               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


                We have issued our report dated December 8, 2000, accompanying
the financial statements included in the Annual Report of XATA Corporation on
Form 10-KSB, for the year ended September 30, 2000. We hereby consent to the
incorporation by reference of said report in the Registration Statements of XATA
Corporation on Forms S-8 (File No. 33-74148, 33-89222, 33-94006, 333-03670 and
333-28337) and Form S-3 and amendments (File No. 333-82905).




                                                      /s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP

Minneapolis, Minnesota
January 11, 2001
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

MARVIN HOLMES,

Defendant BelowAppellant,

v.

STATE OF DELAWARE,

Plaintiff BelowAppellee.

§

§ No. 659, 2014

§

§

§

§ Court Below—Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware,

§ in and for New Castle County

§ Cr. ID 1210015494

§ 

§

Submitted: January 22, 2015

 Decided: February 12, 2015

Before HOLLAND, VALIHURA, and VAUGHN, Justices.

O R D E R

This 12th day of February 2015, upon consideration of the opening 

brief, the State’s motion to affirm, and the record below, it appears to the 

Court that:

(1) The appellant, Marvin Holmes, filed this appeal from the 

Superior Court’s denial of his motion for modification of sentence. The 

State has filed a motion to affirm the judgment below on the ground that it is 

manifest on the face of Holmes’ opening brief that his appeal is without 

merit. We agree and affirm.

(2) The record reflects that Holmes was convicted in 2013 of 

Escape after Conviction. The Superior Court sentenced him as a habitual
2

offender to eight years at Level V incarceration. This Court affirmed his 

conviction and sentence on direct appeal.1 On August 12, 2014, Holmes 

filed a motion for modification of his sentence based on extraordinary 

circumstances. Holmes sought a reduction of his sentence because he has

multiple myeloma, a form of cancer. After a sentence review hearing in 

September 2014 and upon receipt of the State’s response in opposition, the 

Superior Court denied Holmes’ motion on November 10, 2014. This appeal 

followed.

(3) Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b) provides that a motion for 

modification of a sentence of imprisonment that is not filed within 90 days 

of sentencing will only be considered in extraordinary circumstances or 

pursuant to 11 Del. C. § 4217, which permits a sentence modification if the 

Department of Correction (DOC) certifies that an inmate has a serious 

medical illness and that release of the inmate shall not constitute a 

substantial risk to the community or the inmate.2In this case, it is 

unfortunate that Holmes is suffering from a serious medical condition. But 

his condition alone does not entitle him to a modification of sentence unless 

the DOC also certifies that his release shall not constitute a substantial risk 

 

1 Holmes v. State, 2014 WL 3559686 (Del. July 17, 2014).

2 Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(b) (2015). An application for reduction of sentence filed by 

the Department of Correction must be submitted to and approved by the Board of Parole 

before it can be submitted to the Superior Court.
3

to the community or to Holmes himself. The DOC has not made the 

required certification under § 4217. In the absence of this certification, we 

find no abuse of the Superior Court’s discretion in denying Holmes’

motion.3

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 

Superior Court is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Karen L. Valihura

Justice

 

3

See Hubbard v. State, 2011 WL 5009772 (Del. Oct. 20, 2011).
##### 



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 Annual Report of XATA Corporation (the Company)
on Form 10-KSB for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the
undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company
hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that based on their 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 as of and for the periods covered in the
Report. /s/ Craig S. FawcettCraig S. Fawcett, Chief Executive Officer
 Dated: December 20, 2004 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature
that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement required by Section 906, has been provided to XATA Corporation and
will be retained by XATA Corporation and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Breadcrumb

1. Home

2. Print 

3. Pdf 

4. Node 

5. Entity Print 

Butterflies for Release

Last Modified: 

Print

USDA will only consider permits for the following species for release into the

environment depending on where the butterflies are coming from and where they

are being sent: 

Agraulis vanillae

* Danaus plexippus (see note)

Heliconius charitonius

Heraclides cresphontes

Nymphalis antiopa

Papilio polyxenes

Vanessa atalanta

Vanessa cardui

Vanessa virgiensis
Note: *For the monarch butterfly, Danaus plexippus, USDA does not issue permits

for interstate movement across the continental divide for release into the

environment.
## F IFTH 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ Case No. 5D23- 1121 LT Case No. 2009
- CF
- 002359

_____________________________ C ALVA H ASKELL , Appella nt, v. S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee .

_____________________________ 3 .800 appeal from the Circuit Court for Lake County. G. Richar d Singeltary, Judge. Calva H askell, Bushnell, pro se. Ashley M oody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kristen L. Davenport, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee. September 5, 2023 P ER C URIAM . A FFIRMED . E DWARDS , C.J., M AKAR , and H ARRIS , JJ., concur.2 _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331 .

_____________________________
Breadcrumb

1. Home

2. Print 

3. Pdf 

4. Node 

5. Entity Print 

Information to Include on a Lacey Act

Declaration

Last Modified: 

Print

What information do I need to include?

Scientific plant names

Country of harvest

Value of the product

Quantity of plant material in the shipment in metric units of measure

Importer name/address

Consignee name/address

HTSUS Code

Bill of lading

Container number

Manufacturer Identification Code (MID)

Description of shipment

Name/contact information of importer of record or their agent who is certifying

the accuracy of the information on the declaration

What should I do if I don’t know or have some or all of the required information?

The 2008 Lacey Act amendments require a person to file upon importation a

declaration that contains:
the scientific name of any plant (including the genus and species of the plant)

contained in the importation;

a description of:

the value of the importation; and

the quantity, including the unit of measure, of the plant; and

the name of the country from which the plant was taken.  

When the species of plant used to produce a product varies and the exact species is

unknown, the declaration shall contain the name of each species of plant that may

have been used to produce the product. When the species of plant used to produce

a product is commonly taken from more than one country and the exact country

from which the plant was taken is unknown, the declaration shall contain the name

of each country from which the plant may have been taken.

APHIS recognizes it is difficult, and sometimes impossible to provide the required

information for certain plant products. For this reason, we have developed a list of

special use designations (SUD). These designations provide relief for the trade

community when filing Lacey Act declarations for: 

1. plant products that may be categorized by genus or species into common trade

groups;

2. plant products containing composite, recycled, reused or reclaimed materials;

3. plant products that were manufactured prior to the passage of the Lacey

Act Amendments.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial  information extracted from the balance
sheet of CNL Income Fund XI, Ltd. at September  30, 1998,  and its  statement of
income  for the nine  months  then ended and is  qualified  in its  entirety  by
reference to the Form 10-Q of CNL Income Fund XI, Ltd. for the nine months ended
September 30, 1998.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                         1,492,088
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  48,485
<ALLOWANCES>                                   20,283
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0<F1>
<PP&E>                                         26,016,146
<DEPRECIATION>                                 2,799,124
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 35,549,591
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0<F1>
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     34,068,418
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   35,549,591
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               2,860,551
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  540,998
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                2,425,204
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            2,425,204
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   2,425,204
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
<FN>
<F1>Due  to the  nature  of its  industry,  CNL  Income  Fund  XI,  Ltd.  has an
unclassified  balance  sheet;  therefore,  no values are shown above for current
assets and current liabilities.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
# C_2019131EN.01001701.xml

| 8.4.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 131/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 131/17

---

Appeal brought on 11 September 2018 by Felismino Pereira against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 13 July 2018 in Case T-606/16 Pereira v Commission

(Case C-571/18 P)

(2019/C 131/20)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Felismino Pereira (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

By order of 14 February 2019, the Court (Seventh Chamber) dismissed the appeal as manifestly inadmissible.

---
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

I n the interest of A

. L

. W

. , a child, * From the County Court at Law

of Brown County,

Trial Court No. CV1904153

.

No. 1 1

- 1 9

- 00 322

- CV * November 27 , 201 9

* Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

(Panel consists of: Bailey

, C. J.,

Stretcher , J., and Wright, S.C.J.,

sitting by assignment)

(Willson, J., not participating)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that the

appeal should be dismissed. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s

opinion, the appeal is dismissed. The costs incurred by reason of this appeal

are taxed against Appellant

.