alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
& #

#

#

8

6 œ

>

œ

>

œ

>

œ.

>

Allegro q. = 120

f

œ œ

>

œ

>

œ.

>

œ œ

>

œ

>

œ

>

œ

>

œ

>

For ceremonial version,

jump to m. 100, 2nd beat

fi j

œ

v

‰ ‰ Œ. œ

j

œ œ

j

œ

5

P

œ

j

œ œ

j

œ

œ

j

œ œ

. œ. œ.

& #

#

#

 ̇. œ

j

œ œ

j

œ œ

j

œ

œ

. œ. œ. œ J

œbœ Jnœ

f

œ

j

œ œ

j

œ œ J

œ œ Jœ

13

P

œ

j

œ œ

j

œ œ

j

œ œ

. œ. œ.

& #

#

#

 ̇. œ

j

œ œ

j

œ œ

j

œ œ

. œ

. œ

. œ j

œ nœ

j

#œ

f

 ̇. Œ j

œ nœ

j

#œ

21

F

œ

j

œ #œ

j

œ œ

j

œ nœ

j

#œ

& #

#

#

œ. jœ

‰ ‰

œ

j

œ œ

j

œ

P

œ

j

œ œ

. œ

. œ

. œ

j

œ œ

j

œ

f

 ̇. œ

j

œ œ

j

œ

29

P

œ

j

œ œ

. œ. œ. œ

j

œ œ

j

œ

& #

#

#

œ

j

œ #œ

. œ. œ

.  ̇.  ̇. œ

j

œ œ

. œ. œ

. j

œ

‰ ‰

œ.

P

œ

j

œ œ

j

œ

37

œ

j

œ œ

j

œ

œ

j

œ œ

. œ. œ.

& #

#

#

 ̇. œ

j

œ œ

j

œ œ

j

œ

œ

. œ. œ. œ J

œbœ Jnœ

f

œ

j

œ œ

j

œ œ J

œ œ Jœ

45

P

œ

j

œ œ

j

œ œ

j

œ œ

. œ. œ.

& #

#

#

 ̇. œ

j

œ œ

j

œ œ

j

œ œ

. œ

. œ

. œ j

œ nœ

j

#œ

f

 ̇. Œ j

œ nœ

j

#œ

53

F

œ

j

œ #œ

j

œ œ

j

œ nœ

j

#œ

& #

#

#

œ. jœ

‰ ‰

œ

j

œ œ

j

œ

P

œ

j

œ œ

. œ

. œ

. œ

j

œ œ

j

œ

f

 ̇. œ

j

œ œ

j

œ

61

P

œ

j

œ œ

. œ. œ. œ

j

œ œ

j

œ

ALWAYS READY, ALWAYS THERE

Words & Music by

CW4 David A. Myers

40th Army Band, VTARNG

1st Horn in F

The Official March of the National Guard Bureau -Full Orchestra VersionDedicated to the Men and Women, Soldiers and Airmen of America's National Guard
& #

#

#

œ

j

œ #œ

. œ. œ

.  ̇.  ̇. œ

j

œ œ

. œ. œ

. j

œ

‰ ‰

œ.

>

F

œ

j

œ œ

j

œ

69

œ

j

œ œ

j

œ

œ

j

œ œ

. œ. œ.

& #

#

#

 ̇. œ

j

œ œ

j

œ œ

j

œ

œ

. œ. œ. œ J

œbœ Jnœ

f

œ

j

œ œ

j

œ œ J

œ œ Jœ

77

P

œ

j

œ œ

j

œ œ

j

œ œ

. œ. œ.

& #

#

#

 ̇. œ

j

œ œ

j

œ œ

j

œ œ

. œ

. œ

. œ j

œ nœ

j

#œ

f

 ̇. Œ j

œ nœ

j

#œ

85

F

œ

j

œ #œ

j

œ œ

j

œ nœ

j

#œ

& #

#

#

œ. jœ

‰ ‰

œ

j

œ œ

j

œ

P

œ

j

œ œ

. œ

. œ

. œ

j

œ œ

j

œ

f

 ̇. œ

j

œ œ

j

œ

93

P

œ

j

œ œ

. œ. œ. œ

j

œ œ

j

œ

& #

#

#

œ

j

œ #œ

. œ. œ

.  ̇.  ̇. œ

j

œ œ

. œ. œ

.

fi

j

œ

‰ ‰

œ.

>

F

Ceremonial version,

from m. 4

 ̇.

>

101

œ. œ.

>  ̇.

>

 ̇.

& #

#

#

œ. œ œ œ

- œ. œ.  ̇. j

œ

‰ ‰

œ.

>

 ̇.

>

109

œ. œ. œ. œ.  ̇.

& #

#

#

œ. œ œ œ œ. œ œ œ œ. œ. j

œ

‰ ‰

œ.

>

 ̇.

>

117

 ̇. œ. œ. œ ‰ œ œ jœ

& #

#

#

œ. œ. œ. œ œ œ  ̇. j

œ

‰ ‰

œ.

>

f

‰

œ

>

œ

>

œ.

>

125

œ. jœ

‰ ‰ ‰

œ

>

œ

>

œ.

>

& #

#

# j

œ

‰ ‰ œ.

>

œ

>

œ

>

œ

>

œ

> j

œ

>

ƒ

œ

> j

œ

>

œ.

>

œ.

>

œ

> œ

>

2

œ.

>

œ

> œ

>

2

œ

>

j

œ

> œ

>

œ

>

2 j

œ

v

‰ ‰ Œ.

ALWAYS READY, ALWAYS THERE

Official March of the National Guard Bureau

-1st Horn in F2
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7131

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JERRY LEE KEY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., District Judge. (CR-97-33, CA-99-796-2) Submitted: October 12, 2000 Decided: October 20, 2000 Before WILLIAMS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jerry Lee Key, Appellant Pro Se. Rebecca A. Betts, United States Attorney, Michael Lee Keller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on August 2, 2000, the district court’s records show that it was entered on the docket sheet on August 3, 2000. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date that the order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as the effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986). 2 PER CURIAM:Jerry Lee Key seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find noreversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Key , Nos. CR-97-33; CA-99-796-2 (S.D.W. Va. Aug. 3, 2000). * We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
No 2,651.

#### THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA *v.*JOHN BANGENEAUR.

Criminal Law. — Practice.—NewTbiai,..—In a criminal case a new trial can only be granted on application of defendant.

Appeal from the Municipal Criminal Court of the City and County of San Francisco.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

*Geo. W. Tyler,*for Appellant.

*Jo Hamilton,*Attorney-General, for Bespondent.

Temple, J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court, Rhodes, C. *J.,*'Wallace, J., and Crockett, J., concurring:

The defendant was convicted of the crime of burglary. At the time he was called up for sentence, for some reason *614which, does not appear, the District Attorney asked that the verdict be set aside and a new trial granted. The motion was sustained against the objection of the defendant, who, feeling aggrieved, has appealed to this Court from the order.

The statute only authorizes the Court to grant a new trial upon application of the defendant.

The order is, therefore, erroneous and must be reversed. So ordered.
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 66 (Tuesday, April 7, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 18664]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-08020]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the 
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities 
and Exchange Commission Investor Advisory Committee will hold a meeting 
on Thursday, April 9, 2015, in Multi-Purpose Room LL-006 at the 
Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC. The 
meeting will begin at 9:30 a.m. (ET) and will be open to the public. 
Seating will be on a first-come, first-served basis. Doors will open at 
9 a.m. Visitors will be subject to security checks. The meeting will be 
webcast on the Commission's Web site at www.sec.gov.
    On March 18, 2015, the Commission issued notice of the Committee 
meeting (Release No. 33-9739), indicating that the meeting is open to 
the public (except during portions of the meeting reserved for meetings 
of the Committee's subcommittees), and inviting the public to submit 
written comments to the Committee. This Sunshine Act notice is being 
issued because a quorum of the Commission may attend the meeting.
    The agenda for the meeting includes: Remarks from Commissioners; 
nomination of candidates for officer positions and election of 
officers; a discussion of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission's 
investor behavior survey results; a discussion of background checks as 
a means to address elder financial abuse (which may include a 
recommendation); a discussion of proxy access and staff review of Rule 
14a-8(i)(9) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (which may 
include a recommendation); an update on the SEC proxy voting 
roundtable; an update on the recommendations of the SEC Advisory 
Committee on Small and Emerging Companies; and nonpublic subcommittee 
meetings.
    For further information, please contact the Office of the Secretary 
at (202) 551-5400.

     Dated: April 2, 2015.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-08020 Filed 4-3-15; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE CODE 8011-01-P
# 107th midway through Atlantic Resolve NATO deployment

/ Published Dec. 8, 2021

EASTERN EUROPE – Approximately 150 Soldiers from the 107th Maintenance Company are representing the Wisconsin Army National Guard proudly at the midway point of their mobilization to Eastern Europe.

The 107th, which is headquartered in Sparta, Wisconsin, with detachments in Viroqua, Wisconsin, and Camp Ripley, Minnesota, is performing optimally, according to Capt. Shawn Smith, the unit’s commander.

After mobilizing in May, the unit was dispersed across Poland, Romania, and Lithuania as a part of Operation Atlantic Resolve. The Soldiers have developed a well-balanced workday that revolves around operating maintenance shops. Every day, the Soldiers service cars, computers, air conditioning and refrigeration units, heating units, communications equipment, and more. The 107th has completed 34 external missions, closed out 982 work orders, and accounted for 6,662 labor hours.

Cpl. Noah Olsen is a utilities equipment repairer. He said that what makes his job most enjoyable is working with the other Soldiers in the unit and the camaraderie they’ve developed. He said he’s surprised about how much he has learned outside of his occupation.

“Not only have I learned more about my job, but I have learned how the full-time Army works, in our unit and others,” Olsen said. “Off-duty, I spend time interacting with the other units stationed here with us. Their mission and jobs are different than ours, and I try to learn all I can from them.”

Staff Sgt. Katlynn Rhyner said it means a lot to her to be a part of something that makes a difference now and in the coming years.

“The mission is all about the future relationships we have in Eastern Europe,” she said. “To be the ones here building these future relationships that will be crucial in the coming years is an overall great opportunity.”

Instead of performing her job as a chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) specialist, she took plans and coordinates activities for her unit and her higher unit while also conducting CBRN maintenance. While it was challenging to be given new jobs in a new country, Rhyner has adapted and developed new skills.

“Being in a leadership position within headquarters, I’ve been able to form stronger leadership characteristics, and the ability to work with various units and battalion for missions, building morale and having a more overall diverse skill set.”

Rhyner’s peers said her multi-day trips around Europe had been the highlight of their deployment.

“The best parts have been when we’ve been allowed to participate in morale, welfare and recreation trips throughout Eastern and Central Europe. A couple of the best were the trips to Auschwitz and Berlin,” said Smith.

Olson agreed.

“We can embrace their culture, taste their cuisine, and have experiences that we could never get at home,” he said.

The 107th is to return stateside in the spring.
#### Daniel C. McIntyre, plaintiff in error, *vs.*Robert T. Hurst *et al.,*defendants in error.

Where exception is taken to the refusal to grant an injunction, and the case is brought to this court, and no order is taken setting it for trial, it will be dismissed when the heel of the docket is reached. (R.)

Injunction. Practice in the Supreme Court. Before the Supreme Court. July Term, 1874.

This case was called when the heel of the entire docket was reached, it remaining open. Counsel for defendants moved to dismiss the writ of error because the exception was to the refusal of the chancellor lo grant an injunction, and no order bad been taken setting the case at any particular point on the docket for trial. The motion was sustained and the principle embraced in the above head-note enunciated.

Gurley & Goode, for plaintiff in error.

H. J. & A. T. McIntyre ; C. P. Hansell, for defendant.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A17A0501. PARTS “R” US v. GERARDO GONZALEZ.

Parts “R” Us filed this direct appeal seeking review of a judgment in favor of

Gerardo Gonzalez for $3,500 plus $56 in court costs. Under OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (6),

appeals in all actions for damages in which the judgment is $10,000 or less must

comply with the discretionary appeal procedures. Because this suit is an action for

damages and the judgment entered waslessthan $10,000, a discretionary application

was required. See Jennings v. Moss, 235 Ga. App. 357, 357 (509 SE2d 655) (1998);

see also Emerson v. Brookmere Homeowners Ass’n, 311 Ga. App. 371, 371 n.1 (715

SE2d 775) (2011). Parts “R” Us’s failure to file an application for discretionary

appeal deprives us of jurisdiction over this direct appeal, which is hereby

DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

November 30, 2016

11/30/2016
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


                We have issued our report dated January 31, 2003 (except for
Note 17 to the financial statements, as to which the date is March 21, 2003),
accompanying the consolidated financial statements included in the Annual Report
of Famous Dave's of America, Inc. on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 29,
2002. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said report in the
Registration Statements of Famous Dave's of America, Inc. on Forms S-3 (File
No.'s 333-86358, 333-48492, 333-95311, 333-54562, 333-65428 & 333-73504) and
Forms S-8 (File No.'s 333-88928, 333-88930, 333-88932, 333-16299, 333-49939 &
333-49965).

/s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP



Minneapolis, Minnesota
April 14, 2003
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3115 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 3115

   To remove the 4-year sunset from the Pro bono Work to Empower and 
                         Represent Act of 2018.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 28, 2021

     Mr. Sullivan (for himself, Mrs. Shaheen, Mrs. Capito, and Ms. 
  Murkowski) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To remove the 4-year sunset from the Pro bono Work to Empower and 
                         Represent Act of 2018.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Pro bono Work to Empower and 
Represent Act of 2021'' or the ``POWER 2.0 Act''.

SEC. 2. REMOVAL OF SUNSET.

    Section 3(a) of the Pro bono Work to Empower and Represent Act of 
2018 (Public Law 115-237; 132 Stat. 2448) is amended by striking ``for 
a period of 4 years''.
                                 <all>
```
MSDS ‐ Sanitized
#### Bean v. Moore et al.

1. Amendments. — The power given to the courts by statute to amend any process, pleading, etc., is not mandatory, but it rests in the sound discretion of the court to grant or refuse an amendment.

2. Same — error.—The decision of the court, upon an application to amend, can be assigned as error only in cases of marked abuse of discretion. Where the court, after the jury were sworn, refused the plaintiff’s application to amend his declaration a second time, and the plaintiff thereupon submitted to a nonsuit, *held,*that this ruling was not an abuse of discretion.

(2 *Ohand.*44.)

EEEOE to tbe Ch’cuit Court for *Portage*County;

This was an action of assumpsit. At tbe circuit, and before tbe cause was reached, tbe plaintiff’s attorney made a motion for leave to amend bis declaration, by entering a discontinuance as to one of tbe defendants, which motion was granted. After tbe granting of this motion tbe parties declared themselves ready for tbe trial of tbe cause, and a jury was empan-neled and sworn for that purpose. Tbe plaintiff then made *393a motion further to amend the declaration, by adding a new special count. The motion was overruled, and thereupon the plaintiff submitted to a nonsuit, upon the qualification that, if the court should, upon writ of error, reverse the decision denying the motion to amend, then the nonsuit should be set aside or waived, and the cause be tried. The plaintiff then took an exception to the ruling, denying the motion further to amend, and the case comes here upon such exception.

*M. M. Strong,*for plaintiff in error.

*Oollins &*Alban, for defendant in error.

WhitoN, J.

The plaintiff in this cause, after the trial had begun, moved for leave to amend his declaration by adding a special count. This was refused, and thereupon he submitted to a nonsuit, subject to the opinion of this court.

The power is given by our statute of amendments to the court to amend any process, pleadings or proceedings, at any time before judgment, for the furtherance of justice. The statute is in no sense mandatory, nor is any absolute right secured to parties litigant. The power is wisely given to the court, for the benefit of suitors, and for the dispatch of business, to be exercised within its sound discretion.

Hence, the ruling in this cause is not strictly a matter subject to a writ of error, and it is only in cases of marked abuse of discretion that this court will entertain such a question.

Whether leave should be given to amend, must depend upon the circumstances of each case, for no rule can be laid down which will be applicable to every case in court.

Judgment affirmed.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 8, 2016

No. 04-16-00535-CV

SAN ANTONIO RIVER AUTHORITY,

Appellant

v.

AUSTIN BRIDGE & ROAD, L.P. AND HAYWARD BAKER INC.,

Appellee-s

From the 38th Judicial District Court, Medina County, Texas

Trial Court No. 15-12-23406-CV

The Honorable Camile G. Dubose, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

In this court’s order of October 21, 2016, appellate deadlines in this case were suspended until

December 5, 2016, allowing for a disposition to be filed within (30) days of the date of

mediation. On December 5, 2016, the appellant filed an unopposed motion requesting that the

deadline suspension be extended until December 21, 2016, to conduct scheduled mediation. No

further extensions of time will be considered or granted without proof of extraordinary

circumstances.

The request is granted. Appellate deadlines in this case are hereby suspended until

December 21, 2016. 

It is so ORDERED on December 8, 2016.

_________________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 8th day of December, 2016.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court

FILE COPY
\

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-16-00638-CV

CON-CORP CONSTRUCTION, L.L.C.,

Appellant

v.

J.D. COLLISION EXPRESS, L.L.C.,

Appellee

From the 166th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016CI07146

Honorable David A. Canales, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Jason Pulliam, Justice

Delivered and Filed: December 7, 2016

DISMISSED

On September 29, 2016, appellant, Con-Corp Construction, L.L.C. filed a notice of appeal 

from the trial court’s judgment signed August 30, 2016. The clerk’s record was due October 31, 

2016, but it was not filed. On November 1, 2016, the trial court clerk filed a notification, stating 

the clerk’s record would not be filed because appellant had not paid or made arrangements to pay 

the clerk’s fee to prepare the record and is not entitled to appeal without paying the fee. On 

November 4, 2016, we ordered appellant to provide written proof to this court on or before 

November 14, 2016, that either (1) the clerk’s fee has been paid or arrangements had been made 
04-16-00638-CV

- 2 -

to pay the clerk’s fee; or (2) appellant is entitled to appeal without paying the clerk’s fee. We 

advised that if appellant failed to respond within the time provided, this appeal would be dismissed. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b); 42.3(c). Appellant has not filed a response and the clerk’s record has 

not been filed. 

We therefore order this appeal dismissed.

PER CURIAM
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2685 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2685

    To terminate any existing mask mandates imposed by the Federal 
  Government, to prevent the implementation of new mask mandates, to 
          preserve individual liberty, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             August 9, 2021

 Mr. Cruz (for himself and Mr. Cramer) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, 
                     Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To terminate any existing mask mandates imposed by the Federal 
  Government, to prevent the implementation of new mask mandates, to 
          preserve individual liberty, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``No Mask Mandates Act of 2021''.

SEC. 2. TERMINATION OF FACE MASK ORDERS.

    (a) Termination.--Effective on the date of enactment of this Act, 
the following shall be void and have no force or effect:
            (1) Executive Order 13991 (86 Fed. Reg. 7045), issued on 
        January 20, 2021.
            (2) The order issued by the Centers for Disease Control and 
        Prevention on January 29, 2021, pursuant to section 361 of the 
        Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 264), requiring persons to 
        wear masks while on conveyances and at transportation hubs.
    (b) No Authority To Issue Subsequent Orders.--Notwithstanding any 
other provision of law, no Federal agency or office may issue an order 
requiring persons to wear face masks in response to COVID-19.

SEC. 3. RESTRICTIONS ON THE USE OF PREVIOUSLY APPROPRIATED FUNDS.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no funds previously 
appropriated by Congress may be used by any executive agency or 
department of the United States to develop, implement, or otherwise 
enforce any Federal rule, regulation, or order requiring persons to 
wear masks in response to COVID-19.
                                 <all>
```
ex10_2.htm


 


EXHIBIT 10.2


 


 


Accelerated Venture Partners, LLC


 







1840 Gateway Drive, Suite 200


Foster City, CA 94404








April 19, 2013







Accelerated Acquisitions XXII, Inc.


1840 Gateway Drive, Suite 200


Foster City, CA 94404







Re:           Tender of shares for cancellation







Gentlemen:







By this letter, the undersigned tenders for cancellation 3,500,000 of the 5,000,000 shares of common stock par value $0.0001 of Accelerated Acquisitions, XXII, Inc. (the “Company”) which it holds.  Following the cancellation of such shares, Accelerated Venture Partners, LLC will hold a total of 1,500,000 of the Company’s Common Shares.







Sincerely,







ACCELERATED VENTURE PARTNERS, LLC







By:       /s/ Timothy Neher


Timothy Neher, Managing Member