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


 



















 







March 1, 2017







Blackbridge Capital Growth Fund, LLC 


450 7th Avenue, Suite 609


New York, NY 10123







Re:       Termination of Securities Purchase Agreement between Blackbridge Growth Fund, Inc., and ABCO Energy, Inc. dated as of November 2, 2016 ("SPA")







Gentlemen:


This will confirm our recent discussion wherein we mutually agreed that:


1.     the SPA shall be deemed null and void and will be deemed terminated as of March 1, 2017 (the "Termination") because the continued processing of a Registration Statement on Form S-1 ("S-1"), contemplated by SPA would not be occur because of technical issues raised by the SEC. The S-1 was withdrawn at the request of the SEC, effective February 28, 2017; and


2.     The $150,000 Convertible Promissory Note issued under the SPA as the Commitment Fee ["Fee Note"] remains in full force and effect notwithstanding the Termination because the Fee Note, per the terms thereof , was deemed fully earned as of November 2, 2016, the date of issuance, regardless of whether any drawdowns were ever made under the SPA, or otherwise.


 


Please confirm your agreement with the all of the foregoing by executing and returning a copy of this Memorandum to the undersigned.







Very truly yours,







ABCO ENERGY, INC.


 


By:   






Charles O'Dowd, CEO







 


DGE CAPITAL GROWTH FUND, LLC

















 


,.





 I









2100 North Wilmot, Suite 211,Tucson, Arizona 85712 Phone (520) 777-0511/Fax (520) 620-5574


,   ..
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATION



I, Mark R. Richards, President and Chief Executive Officer of Appleton Papers Inc., certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Appleton Papers Inc.;



2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to
make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



a)
Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is
made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most
recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



5. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.



Date: August 15, 2005



|           |  |                                      
|---------- |  | -------------------------------------
|           | 
|Signature: |  | /s/    MARK R. RICHARDS              
|           |  | Mark R. Richards                     
|           |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
#### Michael B. FORTE, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. Thomas REILLY, Attorney General, Defendant, Appellee.

No. 02-1217.

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.

Aug. 8, 2002.

Michael B. Forte on brief pro se.

Thomas F. Reilly, Attorney General, and Eva M. Badway, Assistant Attorney General, on brief for appellee.

*396Before BOUDIN, Chief Judge, TORRUELLA and HOWARD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff Michael Forte was convicted of various state crimes back in 1987. Although he has since been released from prison, he wishes to bring a damages action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to obtain redress for various constitutional violations that allegedly tainted that criminal proceeding. Under *Heck v. Humphrey,*512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994), however, he cannot do so unless and until one or more of his underlying convictions have been invalidated. *Accord, e.g., Figueroa v. Rivera,*147 F.3d 77, 80-81 (1st Cir.1998). Recognizing this fact, Forte has filed a multitude of actions in state and federal court seeking to accomplish that task-all without avail. A recent such effort consisted of a petition for declaratory relief which the state court denied in 2001 on statute-of-limitations grounds. Claiming that he is entitled under *Heck*to a state-court adjudication of his constitutional claims *on the merits*(as a foundation for a future § 1983 action), Forte now seeks a federal court injunction compelling the state court to undertake such review. The district court dismissed. We affirm.

As we understand his argument, Forte apparently believes that § 1983 and *Heck*and the Due Process Clause, in concert, create a federal right to have constitutional challenges to a conviction heard on the merits in state court-a right enforceable by injunctive relief in federal court. That belief would seem clearly misplaced. *Cf. Spencer v. Kemna,*523 U.S. 1, 17, 118 S.Ct. 978, 140 L.Ed.2d 43 (1998) (rejecting view “that a § 1983 action for damages must always and everywhere be available”).1 But we need not decide the point, inasmuch as Forte *did*obtain substantive review of his claims as part of the collateral proceeding brought under Mass. R.Crim. P. 30. *See Forte v. Commonwealth,*429 Mass. 1019, 1020, 711 N.E.2d 880 (1999) (rescript) (so noting).2 There is no conceivable basis for an injunction here designed simply to provide Forte with a second round of such review. His complaint thus fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. *See*Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).

*Affirmed.*

1

. We note that there has been no suggestion here of any "illegal blocking [of] access to state post-conviction remedies.” *Hoard v. Reddy,*175 F.3d 531, 533 (7th Cir.), *cert. denied,*528 U.S. 970, 120 S.Ct. 411, 145 L.Ed.2d 320 (1999).

2

. Forte's failure to obtain review by the state's highest court in that regard was due to his own dereliction. *See Forte,*429 Mass. at 1020, 711 N.E.2d 880 ("Although he could have applied for further appellate review, he did not do so.”).
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

December 30, 2009 

s1217 

Order 

 

December 30, 2009 

138875 & (17) 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 138875 

 COA: 290336 

Oakland CC: 2005-203484-FH 

JACOB TRAKHTENBERG, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 20, 2009 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered. We DIRECT the Oakland County Prosecuting 

Attorney to answer the application for leave to appeal within 28 days after the date of this 

order. The motion to withdraw as counsel and the application for leave to appeal remain 

pending.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 IMPRESO, INC. CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF SARBANES  OXLEY ACT OF 2002 The undersigned, Marshall D. Sorokwasz, Chief Executive Officer and President of IMPRESO,
INC. (the Company), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:  1.
    The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended February 28, 2005 (the Report) fully
complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended; and2.
    Information contained in the Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operation of the Company.  3.
    Item 4 Controls and Procedures in the Companys Form 10-Q is incorporated
herein by reference. The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 and is
not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document. IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this instrument to be executed this 19th
day of April, 2005. /s/ Marshall D. SorokwaszName:
    
    Marshall D. SorokwaszTitle:
    
    Chief Executive Officer and President
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 377

To amend a provision of part A of title IX of the Elementary and Secondary

Education Act of 1965, relating to Indian education, to provide a technical amendment, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

FEBRUARY 9 (legislative day, JANUARY 30), 1995

Mr. MCCAIN (for himself and Mr. INOUYE) introduced the following bill; which

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs

A BILL

To amend a provision of part A of title IX of the Elementary

and Secondary Education Act of 1965, relating to Indian

education, to provide a technical amendment, and for

other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.

4 Section 9112(a)(1)(A) of the Elementary and Sec5 ondary Education Act of 1965 (as added by section 101

6 of the Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994 (Public
2

•S 377 IS

1 Law 103–382)) is amended by striking ‘‘and’’ and insert2 ing ‘‘or’’.

Æ
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 591 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 591

                 For the relief of Ang Tsering Sherpa.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

               March 22 (legislative day, March 16), 1995

 Mr. Hatfield introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                 For the relief of Ang Tsering Sherpa.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENCE.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for purposes of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), Ang Tsering 
Sherpa shall be held and considered to have been lawfully admitted to 
the United States for permanent residence as of the date of the 
enactment of this Act upon payment of the required visa fee.

SEC. 2. REDUCTION OF NUMBER OF AVAILABLE VISAS.

    Upon the granting of permanent residence to Ang Tsering Sherpa as 
provided in this Act, the Secretary of State shall instruct the proper 
officer to reduce by one number during the current fiscal year the 
total number of immigrant visas available to natives of the country of 
the alien's birth under section 203(a) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)).
                                 <all>
```
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed April 3, 2014.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-14-00144-CR

AURELIO COLIN VERA, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 412th District Court

Brazoria County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 50798-1

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This appeal is from a judgment signed January 10, 2014. The appeal was assigned to 

the First Court of Appeals; however, the Harris County District Clerk subsequently, and 

erroneously, assigned this cause to this court. By letter dated March 19, 2014, the Harris 

County District Clerk advised this court of its error. Because this cause was erroneously 

assigned to this court, the appeal in this court is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices McCally, Busby and Donovan.

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2029 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2029

    To make permanent certain authority relating to self-employment 
                          assistance programs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             August 2, 1996

Mr. Wyden (for himself and Mr. D'Amato) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To make permanent certain authority relating to self-employment 
                          assistance programs.

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

SECTION 1. SELF-EMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 507(e) of the North 
American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (26 U.S.C. 3306 note) 
is hereby repealed.
    (b) Conforming Amendments.--Subsection (e) of section 507 of such 
Act is further amended--
            (1) by amending the heading after the subsection 
        designation to read ``Effective Date.--''; and
            (2) by striking ``(1) Effective date.--'' and by running in 
        the remaining text of subsection (e) immediately after the 
        heading therefor, as amended by paragraph (1).
                                 <all>
```
1 Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit

No. 97-30720 Summary Calendar

ROBERT P. ROUGEAU

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC., LLOYD DAIGLE,

JAKE LIPARI, UNIDENTIFIED PARTY

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Eastern District of Louisiana

(96-CV-3205-N) December 24, 1997

Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 1

Appellant Rougeau sued his employer and others alleging denial

of employment benefits and wrongful discharge. His claims were

dismissed by the district court by the granting of several motions

for summary judgment. Appellant appeals contending that the

district court erred in concluding that the decision by the benefit2

plan’s Ad ministrator was supported by adequate evidence, and by

concluding that the Labor Management Rela tions Act precluded his

claims for breach of the collect ive bargaining agreement by his

union and Defendants. Appellant also complains of the court’s

refusal to permit an amendment to his pleadings, and of its

reliance on decisions of this court he considers to have been

wrongly decided.

We have carefully examined the briefs, record and the district

court’s carefully crafted Order and Reasons of January 4, 1997 and

of June 25, 1997. We find no error or abuse of discretion by the

district court and affirm essentially for the reasons she carefully

articulated in her two referenced rulings.

AFFIRMED.
Motion Granted in Part and Denied in Part; Order filed February 6, 2014. 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-12-00755-CV

NO. 14-13-00442-CV

NO. 14-13-00460-CV

NO. 14-13-00462-CV

____________

PAUL STEVEN JACOBS, Appellant

V.

MELISSA ELLEN FIELDS JACOBS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 308th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 2011-14576, 2011-14576A, & 2011-14576B

ORDER

On August 13, 2012, appellant Paul Jacobs filed a notice of appeal from the 

judgment signed August 1, 2012, and the appeal was assigned to this court under 

our appellate number 14-12-00755-CV. On August 1, 2013, this court issued a 

memorandum opinion affirming the trial court’s judgment. Appellant’s motion to 

extend time to file petition for discretionary review was denied by the Texas 
Supreme Court, and, on February 3, 2014, this court’s mandate issued in cause 

number 14-12-00755-CV. On May 24, 2013, appellant attempted to appeal a 

partial summary judgment nunc pro tunc signed in the same trial court cause 

number. The appeal was assigned to this court under our appellate number 14-13-

00460-CV. On October 10, 2013, this court dismissed the appeal for want of 

jurisdiction. Appellant did not file a motion for rehearing or petition for 

discretionary review in cause number 14-13-00460-CV.

On May 20, 2013, appellant filed a notice of appeal from the court’s 

judgment signed April 10, 2013, and the appeal was assigned to this court under 

our appellate number 14-13-00442-CV. On May 24, 2013, appellant filed another 

notice of appeal from the court’s judgment signed April 10, 2013, and the appeal 

was assigned to this court under our appellate number 14-13-00462-CV.

On January 31, 2014, appellant filed a motion to consolidate all four related

appeals. On February 4, 2013, appellee filed a response in which she does not 

object to the consolidation of the appeals on which this court has not issued an 

opinion. Appellant’s motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, and we 

issue the following order:

We order the appeals pending under our appellate case numbers 14-13-

00442-CV and 14-13-00462-CV CONSOLIDATED. We deny appellant’s motion 

to consolidate with regard to appellate case numbers 14-12-00755-CV and 14-13-

00460-CV. The existing filing deadlines in case number 14-13-00462-CV will 

apply to both cases. Appellant’s brief in the consolidated cases is due on or before 

February 12, 2014. No further motions for extension of time for the filing of 

appellant’s brief will be entertained.

PER CURIAM
I kevin Dilliard, am submitting this petition to fly my suas (small unmanned aerial system) for small 

independent films, realtors solar company’s and local community college project to conduct aerial 

videography and cinematography to enhance academic community awareness for those individuals and 

companies unfamiliar with the geographical layout of the greater San Diego area and augment real 

estate listing, solar panel pictures and videos along with local film maker projects. The uav weight will 

stay below 20lbs staying more than 5 miles away from airports, staying under 400 feet in altitude, 

staying more than 100 feet from anyone or thing not involved in any relation to the projects being 

worked on. Have been flying my saus for two years with zero crashes and incidence’s. I pride my self 

being responsible and following all rules and never getting into a situation that has the potential to 

become an issue or incident
#### Ex parte Clarence Harley LEE.

No. 38530.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 23, 1965.

*729Clarence Henry Lee, in pro. per.

Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Judge.

Petitioner, an inmate of the Texas Department of Corrections, made application to this Court for writ of habeas corpus alleging that he was not represented by counsel at the time of his trial for burglary in 1953, when he was found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment as an habitual offender. He further alleges that he was without funds to hire counsel and that he requested that counsel be appointed to represent him, but that such request was by the court refused.

In 1957, petitioner made application to this Court for writ of habeas corpus alleging that he was indigent when he was tried in the District Court of Hunt County and that he was not represented by counsel at such trial. We denied the application relying on Betts v. Brady, 316 U.S. 455, 62 S.Ct. 1252, 86 L.Ed. 1595. Since the denial of petitioner’s prior writ, the Supreme Court of the United States has overruled Betts v. Brady, supra, in the case of Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799.

The Honorable Joe H. Chapman, Judge of the 8th Judicial District Court of Hunt County has certified to this Court that petitioner was without counsel at the time of his trial.

Under the holdings of the Supreme Court in Gideon v. Wainwright, supra, and the decisions of this Court in Ex Parte Hope, Tex.Cr.App., 374 S.W.2d 441, Ex Parte Parsons, Tex.Cr.App., 374 S.W.2d 442, Ex Parte Bushnell, Tex.Cr.App., 375 S.W.2d 720, and Ex Parte Hamilton, Tex.Cr.App., 376 S.W.2d 575, petitioner’s conviction is void.

Accordingly, it is ordered that petitioner be released from his present custody and that he be delivered to the custody of the Sheriff of Hunt County to stand trial on the original indictment in said cause No. 8538 in said Court.