alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
boty_ex1018.htm

EXHIBIT 10.18
  
 AMENDMENT #1 TO THE CONVERTIBLE PROMISSORY NOTE
 ISSUED ON JULY 2, 2018
  
 THIS AMENDMENT #1 TO THE CONVERTIBLE PROMISSORY NOTE ISSUED ON July 2, 2018 (the “Amendment”) is entered into as of July 25, 2018, by and between Lingerie Fighting Championships, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), and Auctus Fund, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the “Holder”) (collectively the “Parties”).
  
 BACKGROUND
  
 A. The Company and Holder are the parties to that certain convertible promissory note originally issued by the Company to the Holder on July 2, 2018, in the original principal amount of $43,500.00 (the “Note”); and
  
 B. The Parties desire to amend the Note as set forth expressly below.
  
 NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the execution and delivery of the Amendment and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows:
  
 1. All references in the Note to $43,500.00 shall be replaced with $48,500.00, to reflect the addition of $5,000.00 of principal to the Note (the “Additional Tranche”), which the Holder will fund in cash pursuant to the Company’s instructions herein on or around the date hereof.
  
 2. The Company hereby directs the Holder to wire the Additional Tranche to the Company, pursuant to the wiring instructions on Exhibit A hereto.
  
 3. This Amendment shall be deemed part of, but shall take precedence over and supersede any provisions to the contrary contained in the Note. Except as specifically modified hereby, all of the provisions of the Note, which are not in conflict with the terms of this Amendment, shall remain in full force and effect.
  
 [Signature page to follow]
  
  	 
	1
	 
 
	 


  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of the date first above written.
   	 Lingerie Fighting Championships, Inc.
	  
	 Auctus Fund, LLC
	  

	  
	 	 	 	 	 
	 By:
	/s/ Shaun Donnelly 	 	 By:
	/s/ Lou Posner	 
	 Name:
	Shaun Donnelly	 	Name:	Lou Posner	 
	 Title:
	Chief Executive Officer	 	Title:	Managing Director	 


  
  	 
	2
	 
 
	 


  
 EXHIBIT A 
  
  	 Account Name: 
	 Lingerie Fighting Championships, Inc.

	  
	  

	 Routing Number: 
	 026009593

	  
	  

	 Account Number: 
	 501017820633

	  
	  

	 Beneficiary Address:
	 6955 North Durango Drive, Suite 1115-129, Las Vegas, NV 89149 

	  
	  

	 Bank Name:
	 Bank of America

	  
	  

	 Bank Address:
	 8450 W. Farm Road, Las Vegas, NV 89131



  
  
  	 3
|                                                                                                                
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                                
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                                  
|View History: Annual                                                                                            
|View History: Annual                                                                                            
|View History:                                                                                                   
|                                                                                                                
|Nebraska Associated-Dissolved Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation, Reserves Adjustments (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                                
|                                                                                                                
|Nebraska Associated-Dissolved Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation, Reserves Adjustments (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                                

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        | -2     | 0      | 0      |        |        |        |        | W      | W     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4266

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus JUSTIN BENJAMIN HASTE, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., District Judge. (1:06-cr-00372-NCT) Submitted: July 9, 2007 Decided: July 26, 2007 Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Louis C. Allen III, Federal Public Defender, Eric D. Placke, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Robert A. J. Lang, Assistant United States Attorney, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Justin Benjamin Haste, Jr., appeals his conviction and 180-month sentence after pleading guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to possession of a firearm by a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(e) (2000). Although Haste concedes he has two predicate offenses for armed career criminal status under the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) (2000), he asserts that a third conviction for felonious possession of a weapon of mass destruction under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-288.8 (2005) should not have been considered a “violent felony” under the ACCA.Haste asks the case be remanded to the district court for resentencing without an ACCA enhancement. We affirm Haste’s conviction and sentence. As acknowledged by Haste, this court held in United States v. Johnson , 246 F.3d 330 (4th Cir. 2001), that possession of a sawed-off shotgun is a “crime of violence” under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“USSG”) § 4B1.1 (2006). The language of USSG § 4B1.2(a)(2) the court construed in Johnson(“or otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another”) is identical to the language of the ACCA’s definition of violent felony at issue in this case. See Johnson , 246 F.3d at 334 n.5; 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii) (2000). Based on our holding in Johnson , we conclude that a conviction under that provision constitutes a predicate “violent- 3 - felony” conviction under the ACCA. Accordingly, we affirm Haste’s conviction and sentence. 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000089629
<NAME> SHELL OIL COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                             593
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,345
<ALLOWANCES>                                        17
<INVENTORY>                                      1,114
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,203
<PP&E>                                          40,969
<DEPRECIATION>                                  20,969
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  28,262
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,144
<BONDS>                                            987
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      14,201
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    28,262
<SALES>                                         20,352
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                20,824
<CGS>                                           15,726
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   16,081
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,779
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    13
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 155
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,043
<INCOME-TAX>                                       560
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,448
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,448
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002

I, Charles H. Abdalian, Jr., certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Coley Pharmaceutical Group, Inc., as amended by this Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on
Form 10-K/A; and

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.

Date: March 29, 2006



|                                                                                             
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                             
|/S/    CHARLES H. ABDALIAN,
JR.                                                              
|Charles H. Abdalian, Jr. Chief Financial Officer (principal financial and accounting officer)
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 468 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the reduction in 

the deductible portion of expenses for business meals and entertainment. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 26, 2011 

Ms. BERKLEY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal 

the reduction in the deductible portion of expenses for 

business meals and entertainment. 

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

3 SECTION 1. REPEAL OF REDUCTION IN BUSINESS MEALS 

4 AND ENTERTAINMENT TAX DEDUCTION. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 274(n)(1) of the Internal 

6 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ‘‘50 per7 cent’’ and inserting ‘‘the applicable percentage’’. 

8 (b) APPLICABLE PERCENTAGE.—Section 274(n) of 

9 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking 

10 paragraph (3) and inserting the following: 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 468 IH

1 ‘‘(3) APPLICABLE PERCENTAGE.—For purposes 

2 of paragraph (1), the term ‘applicable percentage’ 

3 means the percentage determined under the fol4 lowing table: 

‘‘For taxable years beginning in The applicable 

calendar year— percentage is— 

2011 ................................................................................................... 75

2012 or thereafter .............................................................................. 80.’’. 

5 (c) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The heading for 

6 section 274(n) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 

7 amended by striking ‘‘ONLY 50 PERCENT’’ and inserting 

8 ‘‘PORTION’’. 

9 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

10 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

11 December 31, 2010. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
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 Brampton Crest International Inc. on Form
10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Bryan Norcross, Chief
Executive Officer certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to
the best of my knowledge and belief:





(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.





/s/ 
      Bryan NorcrossBryan
      NorcrossCEO


Date:
October 6, 2009
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v. MARCO JORDAN DUENAS

- GARCIA,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 20

- 50346
D.C. No. 3:18

- cr - 00977

- JLS

- 1

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Janis L. Sammartino, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 8, 2021 * *
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and MILLER, Circuit Judges. Marco Jordan Duenas

- Garcia appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 18

- month sentence imposed upon his second revocation of supervised release . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm

. Duenas

- Garcia contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

NOV 15 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 20

- 50346

to address his mitigating circumstances , failing to explain the sentence adequately, and relying on the need to punish the underlying violation conduct . We r eview for plain error, see United States v. Valencia

- Barragan , 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010) , and conclude that there is none. The record reflects that the district court considered Duenas

- Garcia’s arguments and adequately explained its reasons for imposing a within

- Guidelines sentence. See United States v. Carty , 520 F.3d 984,
99 2 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc); see also United States v. Perez

- Perez , 512 F.3d 514, 516 (9th Cir. 2008) (district court need not specifically address each of the defendant’s arguments to show that it has considered them)

. Duenas

- Garcia has not shown that, had the court said more, there is a “ reasonable probabi lity ” he would have received a different sentence

. See United States v. Christensen , 732 F.3d 1094, 110 2 (9th Cir. 2013 ). Finally , the record reflects that the court considered only permissible sentencing factors and imposed the sentence to sanction Duen as - Garcia’s breach of the court’s trust

. See United States v. Simtob , 4 85 F.3d 1058, 1062

- 63 (9th Cir. 2007).
Duena s - Garcia also alleges that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. In light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) factors and the totality of the circumstances, t he district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing the 18

- month sentence

. See Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
AFFIRMED .
|                                                                       
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                       
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                         
|View History: Annual                                                   
|View History: Annual                                                   
|View History:                                                          
|                                                                       
|Montana Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels)
|                                                                       
|                                                                       
|Montana Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels)
|                                                                       

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1990's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        | NA     | NA     | 6      | 83    
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 36     | 43     | 65     | 79     | 104    | 88     | 91     | 90     | 50     | 42    
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 74     | 59     | 95     | 104    | 155    | 87     | 63     | 72     | 30     | 76    
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 75     | 117    |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES ex rel. GREGORY

DAVIDOV,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

NHIC CORPORATION, a corporation

other, FKA National Heritage Insurance

Company,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 13-56462

D.C. No. 2:08-cv-03287-DSF-RZ

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Dale S. Fischer, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 23, 2015** 

Pasadena, California

FILED

NOV 24 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Before: PREGERSON and TROTT, Circuit Judges and STAFFORD,*** Senior

District Judge.

 

Gregory Davidov (“Davidov”) appeals the district court’s dismissal of his

qui tam action against NHIC for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing the district court’s dismissal

de novo and the district court’s findings of fact for clear error, we affirm. A-1

Ambulance Serv., Inc. v. California, 202 F.3d 1238, 1242 (9th Cir. 2000).

The allegations in Davidov’s qui tam complaint are nearly identical to the

allegations in his 2004 suit against NHIC. KGV’s 2004 complaint and Davidov’s

current qui tam complaint both allege that, starting in 2000, NHIC unlawfully paid

billions of dollars to different providers for the same procedures. Both complaints

maintain that, between April and August, 2003, NHIC stopped enforcing

overutilization safeguards. NHIC’s brief contains a chart of at least 15 instances

where the text of KGV’s 2004 complaint is identical or nearly identical to

Davidov’s current FAC. Since Davidov’s qui tam allegations are nearly identical

to his 2004 allegations, the district court properly found the prior public disclosure

bar applies. See 31 U.S.C. § 3730(e)(4)(A)(I); U.S. ex rel. Biddle v. Bd. of

Trustees of Leland Stanford, Jr. Univ., 161 F.3d 533, 541 (9th Cir. 1998).

 *** The Honorable William H. Stafford, Jr., Senior District Judge for the

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, sitting by designation.

2
Davidov cannot show direct and independent knowledge, because his

allegations are based on statements made by NHIC employees. Therefore, he

cannot satisfy the “original source” exception. See 31 U.S.C. § 3730(e)(4)(B);

United States v. Northrop Corp., 5 F.3d 407, 411 (9th Cir. 1993); U.S. ex rel.

Devlin v. State of Cal., 84 F.3d 358, 360 (9th Cir. 1996). 

The district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Davidov

opportunity to amend his complaint. There is no evidence that an opportunity to

amend would cure the defects in Davidov’s complaint. See Salameh v. Tarsadia

Hotel, 726 F.3d 1124, 1133 (9th Cir. 2013) cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 1322 (2014).

AFFIRMED.

3
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 of Image Technology Laboratories, Inc.,
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2004, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, David Ryon, Chief Executive Officer 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, to my knowledge:

      (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 result of operations
            of the Company.


November 19, 2004                         /s/ David Ryon
                                          --------------
                                          David Ryon
                                          Chief Executive Officer