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


 


Apptigo
International, Inc.


 


GRANT OF STOCK OPTION


 


 


This Grant of Stock Option
is hereby offered to Optionee with respect to the following option grant (the “Option”) to purchase shares of the Common
Stock of Apptigo International, Inc. (the “Corporation”):


 


Optionee: ____________________________________________


 


Grant Date: ____________________________________________


 


Exercise Price: $____ per share


 


Number of Option Shares: ____ shares


 


Expiration Date: ________________________________________


 


Type of Option: _____ Non-Statutory


                           _____ Incentive Stock Option


                           _____ Restricted Stock
Unit


 


Date Exercisable:  ________________________________________


 


Vesting Schedule:  _______________________________________


 _____________________________________________________


 


Special Terms or Conditions: ______________________________


_____________________________________________________


_____________________________________________________


 


Optionee understands and
agrees that the Option is granted subject to and in accordance with the terms of the Apptigo International, Inc. 2014 Stock Incentive
Plan, (the “Plan”). Optionee further agrees to be bound by the terms of the Plan, a copy of which is attached hereto
as Exhibit A and incorporated herein. Optionee hereby acknowledges receipt of a copy of the Plan. All capitalized terms in this
Grant form shall have the meaning assigned to them in this form or in the attached Plan.


 






    	1



    	 



    

 


Assuming that you are in
agreement with the terms of this Grant of Stock Option, please sign your name in the space indicated below.


 


Apptigo International, Inc.


 


 


______________________________


 


By: ___________________________


 


Title: __________________________


 


AGREED:


 


_______________________________


Optionee’s Signature


 


Address: ________________________


_______________________________


 


 


Exhibit A     2014 Stock Incentive Plan




 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 






    	2
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ken Dixon, Appellant.

[774 NYS2d 742]

Appeal by the defendant from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kron, J.), rendered March 11, 2002, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree (two counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree (two counts) under indictment No. 10/01, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence, and (2) a judgment of the same court also rendered March 11, 2002, convicting him of attempted robbery in the third degree under Superior Court Information No. 3630/00, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the evidence at trial on indictment No. 10/01 was legally insufficient to establish his guilt is unpreserved for appellate review *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Gray,*86 NY2d 10 [1995]; *People v Udzinski,*146 AD2d 245 [1989]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the trier of fact, which saw and heard the witnesses *(see People v Gaimari,*176 NY 84, 94 [1903]). Its deter*694mination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record *(see People v Garafolo,*44 AD2d 86, 88 [1974]). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see*CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant entered into a plea agreement on Superior Court Information No. 3630/00 pursuant to which he knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to appeal. That waiver forecloses his current claim that his sentence for attempted robbery in the third degree was excessive *(see People v Hidalgo,*91 NY2d 733 [1998]; *People v Chapman, 2*AD3d 647 [2003], *lv denied*1 NY3d 596 [2004]; *People v Barnes,*306 AD2d 537 [2003], *lv denied*1 NY3d 568 [2003]).

The sentence imposed pursuant to the defendant’s conviction upon indictment No. 10/01 was not excessive *(see People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Smith, J.P., Goldstein, Mastro and Rivera, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32

                            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 4th Grade Films,  Inc.  (the
"Registrant")  on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending  September 30, 2009, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Quarterly
Report"),  we, James Doolin and Shane  Thueson,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 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 presents,  in
all material respects,  the financial  condition and result of operations of the
Registrant.


Date:11/16/09                   /S/ JAMES DOOLIN
                                --------------------------------------------
                                James Doolin, Principal Financial Officer

Date:11/16/09                   /S/ SHANE THUESON
                                --------------------------------------------
                                Shane Thueson, Principal Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 199 (Tuesday, October 15, 2024)]
[Presidential Documents]
[Page 83419]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-23966]




                        Presidential Documents 



Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 15, 2024 / 
Presidential Documents

[[Page 83419]]


                Notice of October 11, 2024

                
Continuation of the National Emergency With 
                Respect to the Democratic Republic of the Congo

                On October 27, 2006, by Executive Order 13413, the 
                President declared a national emergency pursuant to the 
                International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 
                1701 et seq.) to deal with the unusual and 
                extraordinary threat to the foreign policy of the 
                United States constituted by the situation in or in 
                relation to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which 
                has been marked by widespread violence and atrocities 
                that continue to threaten regional stability. The 
                President took additional steps to address this 
                national emergency in Executive Order 13671 of July 8, 
                2014.

                The situation in or in relation to the Democratic 
                Republic of the Congo continues to pose an unusual and 
                extraordinary threat to the foreign policy of the 
                United States. For this reason, the national emergency 
                declared in Executive Order 13413 of October 27, 2006, 
                as amended by Executive Order 13671 of July 8, 2014, 
                must continue in effect beyond October 27, 2024. 
                Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the 
                National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am 
                continuing for 1 year the national emergency with 
                respect to the situation in or in relation to the 
                Democratic Republic of the Congo declared in Executive 
                Order 13413, as amended by Executive Order 13671.

                This notice shall be published in the Federal Register 
                and transmitted to the Congress.
                <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
                
                    (Presidential Sig.)

                THE WHITE HOUSE,

                    October 11, 2024.

[FR Doc. 2024-23966
Filed 10-11-24; 2:00 pm]
Billing code 3395-F4-P
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 24.1


                                 POWER OF ATTORNEY


     The undersigned, as a trustee of Great Lakes REIT, Inc. (the "Company"),
does hereby constitute and appoint Richard A. May, Richard L. Rasley and James
Hicks, and each of them, as his true and lawful attorney-in-fact and agent, with
full power of substitution and resubstitution, for him and in his name, place
and stead, in any and all capacities, to sign the Company's Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1998 and any and all amendments
hereto, and to file the same, with exhibits and schedules thereto, and other
documents therewith, with the Securities and Exchange Commission, granting unto
said attorney-in-fact, full power and authority to do and perform each and every
act and thing necessary or desirable to be done in and about the premises, as
fully to all intents and purposes as he might or could do in person, thereby
ratifying and confirming all that said attorney-in-fact, or his substitute, may
lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 10th day of March, 
1999.

                              /s/ James J. Brinkerhoff
                              ------------------------
                              James J. Brinkerhoff

                              /s/ Daniel E. Josephs
                              ------------------------
                              Daniel E. Josephs

                              /s/ Edward Lowenthal
                              ------------------------
                              Edward Lowenthal

                              /s/ Daniel P. Kearney
                              --------------------------
                              Daniel P. Kearney

                              /s/ Donald E. Phillips
                              ------------------------
                              Donald E. Phillips
#### Budke and another, Plaintiffs and Respondents, vs. Holvick and another, Defendants and Respondents: Papadakis and another, Defendants and Appellants.

*June 9*

July *12, 1949.*

*295For the appellants there were briefs by Sanborn, *Lamoreux & Pray*of Ashland, attorneys, and *Norlin & Spears*of Wash-burn of counsel, and oral argument by *Theron P. Pray.*

For the respondents Claude Budke and Bituminous Casualty Corporation there was a brief by *Warren B. Foster*and *G. Arthur*Johnson, both of Ashland, attorneys, and *Grelle & Schlotthauer*of Madison of counsel, and oral argument by *Mr. Johnson.*

For the respondents Holvick there was a brief by *Hughes &*Anderson, attorneys, and *Powell & Sprowls*of counsel, all of Superior, and oral argument by *R. E. Anderson.*

Hughes, J.

The notice of claim may, as appellants contend, be technically defective. Budke did not manually sign the copies of the notice which were delivered to defendants.

Appellants cite *Voss v. Tittel*(1935), 219 Wis. 175, 262 N. W. 579, 101 A. L. R. 722; *Beyer v. Seymer*(1946), 249 Wis. 257, 24 N. W. (2d) 616; and *Olson v. Stella Cheese Co.*(1948), 254 Wis 62, 35 N. W. (2d) 220, to establish that this court requires the statute to be complied with if one desires more than two years in which to bring his action and serve his complaint.

The statute is specific and requires notice to be given in accordance with its terms, as held in the cases cited and others. However, substantial compliance with the statute must be held to be sufficient. To hold that the notice on behalf of Budke *296was not sufficient would indeed be to hold the plaintiff to a needlessly technical measure of compliance.

It is true, as counsel argues, that under similar circumstances a deed or other conveyance could not be held to be signed so as to transfer title to property. The language of the statute quoted above, however, indicates the legislature intended that a notice should not be deemed insufficient for technical reasons if it gave substantially the information to which the defendant is entitled and was not intended to mislead.

Because of our view of the notice served on behalf of Budke, we will not need to consider the effect of the Bituminous Casualty Corporation notice upon the right of Budke to recover.

*By the Court.*— Order affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-7422

OLUDARE OGUNDE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

WARDEN, BUCKINGHAM CORRECTIONAL CENTER,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CA-99-716-AM)

Submitted: March 23, 2000 Decided: March 29, 2000

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Oludare Ogunde, Appellant Pro Se. John H. McLees, Jr., OFFICE OF

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Oludare Ogunde appeals the district court’s orders denying

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 &

Supp. 1999), and declining to reconsider its judgment. We have

reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. See Ogunde v. Warden, Buckingham Correctional Ctr., No. CA99-716-AM (E.D. Va. Sept. 8, 1999; Sept. 22, 1999; Oct. 1, 1999).

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.

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 #20761 and #20762; SOUTH CAROLINA Disaster Number SC-20014]
 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  South Carolina (FEMA-4835-DR), dated 09/29/2024. *Incident:*
                         Tropical Storm Debby. *Incident Period:*
                         08/04/2024 through 08/22/2024.
 DATES: Issued on 09/29/2024. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         11/29/2024. *Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         06/30/2025.
 ADDRESSES: *Visit the MySBA Loan Portal at https://lending.sba.gov*
                         to apply for a disaster assistance loan.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alan Escobar, Office of Disaster Recovery & Resilience, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 09/29/2024, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of a governmental nature may file disaster loan applications online using the MySBA Loan Portal 
                    *https://lending.sba.gov*
                     or other locally announced locations. Please contact the SBA disaster assistance customer service center by email at 
                    *disastercustomerservice@sba.gov*
                     or by phone at 1-800-659-2955 for further assistance. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: *Primary Counties:*
                     Bamberg, Barnwell, Berkeley, Colleton, Dillon, Dorchester, Georgetown, Hampton, Horry, Jasper, Orangeburg, Union. The Interest Rates are: Percent*For Physical Damage:*Non-Profit Organizations with Credit Available Elsewhere
3.250Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere
3.250*For Economic Injury:*Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere
3.250
 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 207618 and for economic injury is 207620. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008) Rafaela Monchek, Deputy Associate Administrator, Office of Disaster Recovery & Resilience.


[FR Doc. 2024-24169 Filed 10-17-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8026-09-P
Exhibit 23.0

                          Consent of Radics & Co., LLC


<PAGE>









               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


          We  hereby  consent  to  the   incorporation  by  reference  into  the
previously  filed  Registration  Statement on Form S-8 (No.  333-84785)  of West
Essex  Bancorp,  Inc.  (the  "Company")  of our report  dated  January 27, 2000,
included in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December
31, 1999.



                                                           /s/ Radics & Co., LLC
                                                           ---------------------
                                                               Radics & Co., LLC



March 27, 2000
Pine Brook, New Jersey
#### Estate of Eannelli (Massemino): Venci, Administratrix, Appellant, vs. Estate of Eannelli (Massemino) and others, Respondents.

*February 4*

March *2, 1954.*

For the appellant there was a brief and oral argument by *Vaughn S. Conway*of Baraboo.

For the respondents there were briefs by *Chester J. Nieb-ler*of Milwaukee, and oral argument by *Mr. Niebler*and by *Mr. M. J. Paul*of Berlin.

Steinle, J.

The order of the county court of Waushara county dated September 2, 1953, from which appellant purports to appeal herein is identical with that entered in the case of *Estate of Eannelli (Anna),*ante, p. 257, 63 N. W. (2d) 108, which was appealed and determined by this court in said case.

An examination of the record indicates that the appellant originally petitioned the court for an order extending time within which to appeal or in the alternative for a new- trial, only in the case of *Estate of Eannelli (Anna), supra.*No *264motion or petition of such nature was made or filed herein. The county court’s order of September 2, 1953, was not predicated on any application made herein.

No bill of exceptions was settled or served or filed herein. No order was entered by the trial court consolidating these appeals.

Upon motion of respondent the court is obliged to order a dismissal of the appeal herein.

*By the Court.*— Appeal dismissed.
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 12-556V (Not to be published)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

*

DAVID POKORNY

, *

* Filed: July 28, 2014 Petitioner, *

*

v. *

* Decision by Stipulation; Attorneys’

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Fees and Costs AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

* Respondent. *

*

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Laurence F. Padway

, Law Offices of Laurence F. Padway, Alameda, CA, for Petitioner.

Claudia B. Gangi , U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS DECISION 1

On August 30, 2012, David Pokorny filed a petition seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. On July 28, 2014 , the parties filed motion for a

dismissal decision

. On July 28, 2014, counsel for both parties filed another joint stipulation, this time regarding attorneys’ fees and costs. The parties have stipulated that Petitioner’s counsel should receive a lump sum of $ 37,018.49 in the form of a check jointly payable to Petitioner and

1 Because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for my action in this case, it will be posted on the United
States Court of Federal Claims’ website, in accordance with the E

- Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107

- 347, § 205, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2006)). As provided by 42 U.S.C §

300aa

- 12(d)(4)(B), however, the parties may object to the decision’s inclusion of certain kinds of confidential
information. To do so, Vaccine Rule 18(b) permit each party 14 days within which to request redaction “of any
information furnished by that party: (1) that is a trade secret or commercial or financial in substance and is
privileged or confidential; or (2) that includes medical files or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute
a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Vaccine Rule 18(b). Otherwise, the decision will be available to the
public. Id.Petitioner’s counsel. This amount represents a sum to which Respondent does not object. In addition, in accordance with General Order #9, Petitio ner filed a statement on July 28, 2014

, indicating that he had incurred no reimbursable costs in pursuit of his claim.

I approve the requested amount for attorneys’ fees and costs as reasonable. Accordingly, an award should be made in the form of a check jointly payable to Pe titi oner and Petit ioner’s counsel, Laurence F. Padway

, Esq., in the amount of $ 37,018.49 . In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the court SHALL ENTER

JUDGMENT in accordance with the terms of the parties’ stip ulation. 2



### IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran Special Master

2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by filing (jointly or separately) notices renouncing their right to seek review.
CERTIFICATION OF
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Colleen Ewanchuk, the Secretary, Treasurer, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Star Gold Corp. (the Company), hereby 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: (i)the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company, for the quarter  ended July 31, 2008, and to which this certification is attached as Exhibit 32 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) 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/Colleen EwanchukName:Colleen EwanchukTitle:Chief Executive Officer and ChiefFinancial OfficerDate:September 10, 2008 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. This certification accompanies the Form 10-QSB to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-QSB), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.