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





Exhibit 10.1




PURE CYCLE CORPORATION




SUBSCRIPTION AGREEMENT




The undersigned (the “Subscriber”) hereby subscribes for and agrees to purchase the number of
shares of common stock, par value one third of $0.01 per share (“Common Stock”), in Pure Cycle
Corporation, a Colorado corporation (the “Company”), set forth opposite its name on the signature
page hereof (such number of shares hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Shares”), and
agrees to pay therefor the sum of $3.00 per share. Such amount is to be paid in full by wire
transfer to “Pure Cycle Corporation” pursuant to the wire transfer instructions attached hereto as
Exhibit A, and the Company agrees to sell such Shares to the Subscriber.



This Subscription Agreement shall be subject to and governed by the laws of the State of
Colorado (without regard to its conflicts of laws doctrine).



This Subscription Agreement is not assignable by the undersigned and may not be modified,
waived or terminated except by an instrument in writing signed by the party against whom
enforcement of such modification, waiver or termination is sought.



Except as otherwise provided herein, this Subscription Agreement Intent shall be binding upon
and inure to the benefit of the parties and their heirs, executors, administrators, legal
representatives, successors and assigns, and the agreements, representations, warranties and
acknowledgments contained herein shall be deemed to be made by and be binding upon such heirs,
executors, administrators, legal representatives, successors and assigns.



This Subscription Agreement constitutes the entire agreement of the undersigned and the
Company relating to the matters contained herein superseding all prior contracts or agreements,
whether oral or written.



[Signatures on Following Page]



 


 









 





EXECUTION BY SUBSCRIBER




By signing below, the undersigned expressly agrees to the terms and conditions set forth above.



Dated: September __, 2010




Shares subscribed for:                                           



Dollar Amount of Investment Subscribed: $                                         



	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 
	 	 	 
	Signature
	 	 
	 
	 	 
	 
	 	 
	 

	 	 
	 

	 	 
	Subscriber Name (Please Print)

	 	Tax ID or Social Security Number
	 	 	 






	 	 	 	 	 
	Address:

	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 






Telephone No.:                                           



Fax No.:                                           



WHEN COMPLETED AND SIGNED THIS SUBSCRIPTION AGREEMENT SHOULD BE DELIVERED TO THE COMPANY.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	ACCEPTED: SEPTEMBER __, 2010
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	PURE CYCLE CORPORATION
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	Mark W. Harding, President





 


2









 





EXHIBIT A




Wire Transfer Instructions




Please wire the Dollar Amount of Investment Subscribed to the following account:




Pure Cycle Corporation
Routing Number:[•]

Account Number: [•]




Bank Information:





 


3
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATION**I, Billy F. Mitcham, Jr., certify that:1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Mitcham Industries, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand 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 andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, 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 financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.   /s/ Billy F. Mitcham, Jr.   Billy F. Mitcham, Jr.  Chief Executive Officer  December 12, 2006
#### F. G. SIMMONS, Ex’tr, v. GEORGE E. ANDREWS.

*Case on Appeal.*

Where, upon disagreement, the case on appeal was settled by the Judge, who added to the case, “I do not remember distinctly what occurred; I believe that this statement is correct; therefore adopt it,” it was remanded to the Judge, in order to settle the case again-

Civil ACTION, tried before *Shipp, J,*at Spring Term, 1889, of the Superior Court of JoNES County.

The plaintiff appealed.

The case is stated in the opinion.

No counsel for the plaintiff.

*Mr. C. M. Busbee,*for the defendant.

Merrimon, J.

The defendant appealed from the judgment adverse to him to this Court, and served a statement of the case on appeal upon the appellee. The latter returned such statement with specific objections thereto, as-*128a substitute for it, and the appellant thereupon requested the Judge who presided at. the trial to settle the case, &c. The Judge adopted the amendments of the appellee as the case settled, at the end thereof in these words:

“This day, October 15, this matter has been called to my attention. I do not remember distinctly what occurred. I believe that this statement is correct; therefore, adopt it. I am sure that I did not assume authority to try facts without consent,” and signed the same, adding over his initials the other words: '

“There should be legislation upon this subject. It is impossible for a Judge of the Superior Court to remember cases after they have long passed. In this case, without reminder for six months.”

We think such settlement of the case very unsatisfactory, if not altogether insufficient. It is obvious that the Judge was not satisfied with it — that he was in much doubt, because of reasons stated by him. He seems to have accepted the amendment of the appellee without much, if any, inquiry or scrutiny. He might have examined the record, the Clerk of the Court, the counsel, his notes, if these had been preserved — he may do so yet.

The case should be settled by the Judge upon information satisfactory to him, such as enables him to do so free from such perplexing doubts and uncertainty as he might feel called upon to express. If he cannot so settle the case, it would be better that he should say at once he cannot settle it at all.

It may be, that, upon further inquiry, the Judge may be able to settle the case as we have indicated. To the end he may have opportunity to do so, the case must be remanded. The Clerk of the Superior Court will notify him that it is remanded, and transmit to him a copy of this opinion, to be certified by the Clerk of this Court.

Remanded.
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed January 28, 2015.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D14-2629

Lower Tribunal No. 04-11052

________________

Wallace A. Woods,

Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Appellee.

An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the

Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Ellen Sue Venzer, Judge.

Wallace A. Woods, in proper person.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before WELLS, LAGOA, and LOGUE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal of an order summarily denying a motion under Florida

Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). On appeal from a summary denial, this
Court must reverse unless the postconviction record, see Fla. R. App. P.

9.141(b)(2)(A), shows conclusively that the appellant is entitled to no relief. See

Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(D). 

Because the record now before us fails to make the required showing, we

reverse the order and remand for further proceedings. If the trial court again enters

an order summarily denying the postconviction motion, the court shall attach

record excerpts conclusively showing that the appellant is not entitled to any relief. 

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings. 

 

2
Exhibit 12.1

JANUS CAPITAL GROUP INC.  COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES

Year Ended December 31,2008

2007

2006

2005

2004(dollars in millions)Pretax income from continuing operations, excluding equity in earnings of unconsolidated affiliates

$
206.8

$
322.9

$
243.6

$
202.5

$
283.6Interest expense


75.5


58.8


32.3


28.6


38.4Portion of rents representative of an appropriate interest factor


6.4


4.9


5.1


5.0


5.5Distributed earnings of less than 50% owned affiliates


9.0


7.2


7.1


7.1


6.1Income as adjusted

$
297.7

$
393.8

$
288.1

$
243.2

$
333.6Fixed charges:Interest expense on indebtedness

$
75.5

$
58.8

$
32.3

$
28.6

$
38.4Amortized premiums, discounts and capitalized expenses related to indebtness


0.9


0.7


0.6


1.2


2.2Portion of rents representative of an appropriate interest factor


6.4


4.9


5.1


5.0


5.5Total fixed charges

$
82.8

$
64.4

$
38.0

$
34.8

$
46.1Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges


3.59


6.11


7.59


6.99


7.23


---



QuickLinks
Exhibit 10.19


 


AMENDMENT NO. 1

TO

LANTHEUS MI HOLDINGS, INC.


 


2008 EQUITY
INCENTIVE PLAN


 


This
AMENDMENT NO. 1, effective as of March 31, 2009 (this “Amendment”),
to that certain Lantheus MI Holdings, Inc. 2008 Equity Incentive Plan,
effective as of May 8, 2008 (the “Plan”).


 


W I T N E S S E T H:


 


WHEREAS
the Board desires to amend Section 4 of the Plan to increase the
maximum number of Shares that may be issued pursuant to Awards under the Plan
pursuant to Section 13 of the Plan;


 


WHEREAS
the Board desires to amend Section 17 of the Plan to include a
definition of “Committee” pursuant to Section 16(b) of the
Plan;


 


NOW
THEREFORE, it is hereby acknowledged and agreed that:


 


1.             Defined Terms. 
Capitalized terms used herein, but not defined herein, have the respective
meanings ascribed thereto in the Plan.


 


2.             Amendments. 
As of the date first set forth above:


 


(a)           Section 4(a) of the Plan shall be, and
hereby is, amended and restated as follows:


 


“a.  Basic Limitation.  Subject to the following provisions of this Section 4
and Section 13, the maximum number of Shares that may be issued
pursuant to Awards under the Plan is 5,008,000 Shares.  Shares may only be authorized but unissued
Shares and, may not be treasury Shares. 
Where an Award is granted in tandem, the number of Shares charged
against the Basic Limitation shall be the maximum number of Shares that may be
issued pursuant to the Award.”


 


(b)           Section 17
shall be, and hereby is amended by inserting the following new defined term at
the end of such section notwithstanding the insertion thereat would not be in
the correct alphabetical order:


 

















 


“x. “Committee” shall mean the Board, or if the
Board has appointed a Compensation Committee, the Compensation Committee.”


 


3.             Reference to and Effect on the Plan.  Except as specifically amended or waived
herein, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect and is hereby ratified
and confirmed.  All references in the
Plan to the “Plan” shall mean the Plan as amended by this Agreement.


 


4.             Effectiveness. 
This Amendment shall become effective as of the date first written above
(the “Effective Date”).


 


2
#### EDWIN SMALL *vs*JOSEPH H. POOL.

Iu ail action of deceiL in the sale of a slave, alleging her.unsounduess, it is competent for the defendant to give iu evidence, as a matter to aid the jury in assessing damages, what the plaintiff gave for the slave and wha't he afterwards sold her for.

Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Pasquotank County, at the Fall Term, 1846, his Honor Judge Dick presiding.

The case presents but a single point. The plaintiff claims damages of the defendant, for a fraud in the sale of a slave, named Tamer. In order to show the amount, to which he was entitled, the plaintiff introduced witnesses, who testified that the difference, between such a slave as Tamer was, if she had *been sonad, and*such as she actually was, was one half. So far as is disclosed by the case, this was all the evidence, upon that point, given to the jury. The defendant offered to prove what the plaintiff gave for the negro, in January, and what he sold her for in the succeeding July in Richmond. This evidence was objected to by the plaintiff and rejected by the Court. There was a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff and the defendant appealed.

A. *Moore,*for the plaintiff.

No counsel for the defendant,

Nash, J.

The refusal of the Judge to receive the evidence offered by the defendant is the error of which he complains. We think his Honor erred, and that the testimony ought to have been received. In actions sounding in damages, the jury, in general, have a discretionary power, in awarding them, subject to the control of the Court. But in a case of deceit in the sale of property, *48the law has adopted as the rule by which the jury,, are to be governed, and the damages estimated, the difference in the value of the article sold, as sound or unsound, at the time of the sale. The price given by the purchaser, and that for which he sold it, do not, conclusively, fix the amount of damages. But it is competent as *some*evidence of the value of the property, at the respective times of the purchase and the sale, and as such the jury had a right to have it. *Clare*v. *Maynard,*32, E. C. L. R. 714. It does not establish the value, but may aid and assist the jury in their enquiries upon the point. More particularly was it admissible in this case, as the plaintiff had furnished the jury with no evidence upon which they could understandingly act.

He did not show what sum Tamer was worth at the time of the sale, either as sound or unsound.

Per Curiam. Judgment reversed, and a *venire de novo*awarded.
EXHIBIT 10.56

                            DEBT SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

This Debt  Settlement  Agreement is made as of January 23, 2005 between  Yeend &
Castaneda,  LLP, a Florida  limited  liability  partnership  ("Y&C")  and Cedric
Kushner Promotions, Inc., including its subsidiaries and successors ("CKP"):

NOW,  THEREFORE,  in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements herein
contained, the parties agree as follows:

CKP has  incurred  indebtedness  to Y&C of  approximately  $120,000 for services
provided through December 31, 2004.

CKP has agreed that, pursuant to this Agreement,  it will settle its outstanding
debt with Y&C as of follows:

        1.      Cash payment of $37,500 payables as follows:

                a.      $10,000 paid on approx. 01/19/05
                b.      $ 2,500 due by 01/31/05
                c.      $12,500 by 02/15/05
                d.      $12,500 by 02/28/05

        2.      Issuance of warrants, by January 31, 2005, to Y&C or its assigns
                to purchase an  aggregate  of 245,000  shares of common stock of
                CKP at an exercise price of $0.10 per share, cashless provisions
                and piggyback registration rights: and

        3.      Issuance by January 31, 2005 of 145,000  shares of  unregistered
                and restricted common stock of CKP, with piggyback  registration
                rights.

CKP and Y&C agree that this  settlement  does not include CKP's  obligation  for
services performed in 2005,  including  assistance with the audit examination of
CKP's 2004 financial  statements and preparation of the CKP's Form 10-KSB report
and filing with the United States Security & Exchange Commission;  such services
to be paid in accordance with agreed payment terms.

This  Agreement  shall be governed  by the laws of the State of Florida  without
giving effect to the conflict of law rules contained therein.

IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the parties have caused this Agreement to be duly executed
as of the Effective Date.

                  CEDRIC KUSHNER PROMOTIONS, INC.

                  By: /s/ Cedric Kushner
                      -------------------
                          Cedric Kushner

                  YEEND & CASTANEDA, LLP

                  By: ___________________________________
J-S64011-14 

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA 

 Appellee 

v. 

LISA THOMPSON 

 Appellant No. 283 WDA 2014 

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence December 16, 2013 

In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County 

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-02-CR-0010016-2012 

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., BENDER, P.J.E., and LAZARUS, J. 

JUDGMENT ORDER BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED OCTOBER 17, 2014 

 Lisa Thompson appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed by the 

Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County after she pled guilty to 

possession with intent to deliver (PWID),1 two counts of possession of a 

controlled substance,2 and possession of drug paraphernalia.3 Upon careful 

review, we dismiss the appeal. 

 On December 16, 2013, Thompson pled guilty to the above-referenced 

offenses. She waived her right to a pre-sentence investigation, and was 

____________________________________________ 

1

 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30). 

2

 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(16). 

3

 35 P.S. § 780-113(a0(32). 
J-S64011-14 

- 2 - 

sentenced by the Honorable Kathleen A. Durkin to sixteen to forty months’ 

incarceration followed by five years’ probation. 

 On appeal, Thompson raises the following issue for our review: 

Was the sentence imposed manifestly excessive, unreasonable 

and an abuse of discretion where the court failed to consider the 

nature and characteristics of the defendant and her need for 

rehabilitation before imposing a sentence of total confinement. 

Brief of Appellant, at 4. 

Challenges to the discretionary aspects of sentencing do not 

entitle an appellant to review as of right. An appellant 

challenging the discretionary aspects of his sentence must 

invoke this Court’s jurisdiction by satisfying a four-part test: (1) 

whether appellant has filed a timely notice of appeal, see

Pa.R.A.P. 902 and 903; (2) whether the issue was properly 

preserved at sentencing or in a motion to reconsider and modify 

sentence, see Pa.R.Crim.P. [720]; (3) whether appellant’s brief 

has a fatal defect, Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f); and (4) whether there is a 

substantial question that the sentence appealed from is not 

appropriate under the Sentencing Code, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9781(b). 

Commonwealth v. Allen, 24 A.3d 1058, 1064 (Pa. Super. 2011) (citations 

omitted). 

 We have carefully reviewed the record, including the transcript of the 

December 16, 2013 guilty plea/sentencing hearing. Because Thompson did 

not preserve her challenge to the discretionary aspects of sentence at the 

hearing or in a motion for reconsideration, we are precluded from reviewing 

her claim. See Allen, supra. 

 Appeal dismissed. 
J-S64011-14 

- 3 - 

Judgment Entered. 

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. 

Prothonotary 

Date: 10/17/2014
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 216 (Thursday, November 7, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 88147]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-25881]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE

45 CFR Part 2584

RIN 3045-AA60


Protection of Human Subjects

AGENCY: Corporation for National and Community Service.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Corporation for National and Community Service (operating 
as AmeriCorps) is correcting a final rule that appeared in the Federal 
Register on October 29, 2024. These corrections do not include any 
substantive changes to the final rule. The final rule adopted the 
Federal Policy for Protection of Human Subjects (referred to as the 
Common Rule).

DATES: Effective on November 29, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Hyde, Ph.D., Director, AmeriCorps 
Office of Research and Evaluation, at (202) 606-6834 or 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6e0306170a0b2e0f030b1c070d011c1e1d40090118"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b2dfdacbd6d7f2d3dfd7c0dbd1ddc0c2c19cd5ddc4">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In FR Doc. 2024-24517 beginning on page 
85870 in the Federal Register of October 29, 2024, the following 
corrections are made:


Sec.  2584.102   [Corrected]

0
1. Beginning on page 85870, in the third column, and continuing onto 
page 85871, in the first and second columns, correct Sec.  2584.102 by 
removing the paragraph designations (f) through (m).


Sec.  2584.103  [Corrected]

0
2. On page 85871, in the second column, the section number ``2558.103'' 
in the section heading is corrected to read ``2584.103''.


Sec.  2584.104  [Corrected]

0
3. On page 85873, in the first column, in Sec.  2584.104(d)(8)(i), the 
language ``Sec.  2584.116(a)(1) through (4) and (6) and (d)'' is 
corrected to read ``Sec.  2584.116(a)(1) through (4), (a)(6), and 
(d)''.


Sec.  2584.111  [Corrected]

0
4. On page 85874, in the second column, the section number ``2258.111'' 
in the section heading is corrected to read ``2584.111'' and on page 
85874, in the third column, in Sec.  2584.111(a)(8)(i), the language 
``Sec.  2584.116(a)(1) through (4) and (6) and (d)'' is corrected to 
read ``Sec.  2584.116(a)(1) through (4), (a)(6), and (d)''.


Sec.  2584.113  [Corrected]

0
5. On page 85875, in the first column, the section number ``2258.113'' 
in the section heading is corrected to read ``2584.113''.

Andrea Grill,
Acting General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2024-25881 Filed 11-6-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6050-28-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>