alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
KFOR RC-E conducts joint demolition
 
  By 100th Mobile Public Affairs Detachment
  PRISTINA, Kosovo – Explosive ordnance disposal Soldiers from Kosovo Force Regional Command-East and Kosovo Security Force conducted joint demolition operations and EOD certification for eight cadets on Harilaq Demolition Range outside Pristina Oct. 1-2. KFOR Regional Command-East’s Task Force EOD, organic to 720th EOD out of Baumholder, Germany, provided assistance and oversight for the KSF-led demolition and certification. “Although the certification and demolition is being run autonomously by KSF, it is still the mandate of KFOR to remove unexploded ordnance (UXO) from Kosovo,” said 1st Lt. Michael Villahermosa, commander of Task Force EOD. “The munitions being disposed of today are UXO, and it is our responsibility to ensure they are disposed of.” Under the supervision of their experienced instructors, KSF EOD cadets disposed of 16 unexploded ordnance munitions ranging from hand grenades to mortar rounds, remnants from past conflicts in the region. EOD certifications are vital for KSF to grow its force and maintain the capabilities to provide freedom of movement for the people in Kosovo. “This gives [the cadets] more experience and gives them the confidence to perform demolition,” said 1st Lt. Petrit Loxha, Kosovo Security Forces EOD instructor. Villahermosa and Loxha met during a training exercise for KFOR 26. Loxha said the two organizations have had a seamless relationship since the beginning. “We got together pretty naturally and we have enjoyed the companionship,” said Loxha. “KFOR has been very helpful with the joint planning and being present to assistant instruct if needed.” During the 27th rotation of Regional Command-East, KSF and KFOR RC-E responded to over 90 unexploded ordnance calls and conducted three joint demolitions. KSF EOD is the primary responder for unexploded ordnance throughout Kosovo. “This demolition highlights the capabilities and independence of the KSF EOD when it comes to growing their own ranks,” said Villahermosa. “Every time that KFOR and KSF can remove a UXO from the environment, it ensures the safety of the people living here.”
#### PATRICK BURNS *vs.*J. T. DODGE, Appellant.

APPEAL PROM CIRCUIT COURT, ROCK COUNTY.

Heard October 4.]

[Decided November 9, 1859.

Bailroads— *Trespass*— Easement— *Corporations.*

An action of trespass mil not lie against an agent of a railroad company, for entering upon and taking possession of lands condemned according to tbe provisions of tbe charter of tbe company for its use, when the compensation for tbe lands taken has been regularly ascertained and received by tbe owner.

This was an action of trespass for breaking and entering the close of the plaintiff, the same lots as described in the last case, and taking possession of the same, as the engineer of the Milwaukee and Mississippi Railroad. The defendant for a defense, claimed that the Milwaukee and Mississippi Railroad Company was, at the time of the doing the acts complained of in this action, the owner and entitled to the possession of the whole of said lot 24, having taken the same for the use of its railroad, and having had the value thereof assessed to the plaintiff, Bums, under and in pursuance of its, the *459railroad company’s, charter; and the plaintiffhaving appealed from the award of the commissioners making such assessment to the circuit court, and obtaining judgment on his appeal against the company, for the value of the whole of lot 24, and afterwards receiving the amount of his judgment from the railroad company. Whereupon the counsel for the defendant moved for a nonsuit, on the ground that an action of trespass will not lie against a railroad corporation, or any of its officers or employees, for entering upon or taking possesssion of lands, in pursuance of and acting under the authority of an act of the legislature, where, by the act under which they enter upon or take possession of lands, provision is made for ascertaining the value of the land so entered upon and taken possession of, and the damage to the owner; which motion the court overruled.

On the trial the plaintiff proved his possession, the entry by the defendant, &c., and his damages. The defendant showed the condemnation of the lots, the award of damages by the commissioners, the appeal to the circuit court, and judgment, &c., and its satisfaction. The verdict was for the plaintiff, damages $5, and judgment with costs.. From which this appeal is taken.

*B. B. Eldridge,*for the appellant.

*Knowlton, Prichard and Jackson,*for the respondent.

*By the Court,*

PaiNE, J.

This is an action of trespass brought by the respondent against the appellant, an agent of the Milwaukee and Mississippi R. R. Co., for the acts complained of in the suit by the respondent against that company and others. For the reasons given in the preceding case, we think the judgment must be reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial.
August 3, 2015

Mr. James Mackler
Bone, McAllester Norton, PLLC

Counsel
511 Union Street, Suite 1600
Nashville, TN 37219

Dear Mr. Mackler :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from
§ § 61.23(a) and (c)

, 61.101(e)(4) and (5)

, 61.113(a)

, 61.315(a)

, 91.7(a)

, 91.119(c)

, 91.121

, 91.151(a)(1)

, 91.405(a)

, 91.407(a)(1)

, 91.409(a)(1) and (2)

, 91.417(a) and (b) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can n o t Process Your Request

We entered your May 20, 2015

, exemption request on behalf of Unmanned Aircraft
Professional Services, LLC into the public docket (No. FAA− 2015

− 1887 ), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does no t comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must

send us al l of the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html . This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal

Avia tion Administration (FAA) requirements outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any questions you may have.2

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information within 30 days. Please note that § 1 1.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption

at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

I f you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267

- 2999.

Sincerely,

/s/ Brittany Newton Program Analyst, Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure3
#### Levan v. Gardner

*625*John A. Mihalik,*for plaintiff.

*Robert E. Bull,*for defendant.

May 23, 1977

MYERS, P.J.,

While taking a deposition, plaintiffs counsel asked defendant the following question: “Have you given any written statements to any person relating to this accident?” Defendant’s counsel objected to the question and instructed his client not to answer it.

Plaintiff then timely filed a petition seeking a court order to compel defendant to answer the question. The matter is now before us for disposition.

Defendant contends that Pa.R.C.P. 4011(d) explicitly reheves him of any obligation to respond to the question at issue. According to Rule 4011, a deponent need not answer a question which “would disclose the existence or location of. . . statements ... or other things made or secured by any person or party in anticipation of litigation or in preparation for trial . . .”

Varying conclusions have been reached by the various lower courts which have attempted to define the parameters of Rule 4011(d). On the one hand, several courts have refused to order the production of statements made by a party following an accident: Fahey v. Philadelphia Transportation Co., 15 D. & C. 2d 555 (1958). Numerous other courts, however, have concluded that the court-*626ordered production of such statements is proper: Peace v. Hess, 67 D. & C. 2d 230 (1974); Gramiak v. Raines, 55 D. & C. 2d 586 (1972); Baukal v. Acme Markets, 38 D. & C. 2d 86 (1966).

In our view, the rule of liberal construction imposed by Pa.R.C.P. 126, and the general judicial policy of liberal construction in favor of discovery, require that discovery be liberally allowed and, conversely, that the limitations of Rule 4011(d) be narrowly construed. See 5 Anderson Pa. Civ. Prac. §4001.38 et seq. See also 5A Anderson Pa. Civ. Prac. §4011.146. Hence, we adopt the liberal discovery rule articulated in Peace, Gramiak, and Baukal.

Defendant must, therefore, answer the question posed by plaintiffs counsel. In addition, if requested, defendant must furnish copies of any statements he may have made to investigating officers, friends, neighbors, and the like, so long as such statements were not specifically made in preparation for trial or in anticipation of litigation.

Since the courts have been divided in their decisions concerning Rule 4011(d), we cannot say that defendant’s refusal to answer was so unreasonable as to entitle plaintiff to compensation for attorney’s fees. Accordingly, the request for attorney’s fees is denied.

ORDER

And now, May 23, 1977, defendant is hereby ordered to answer the questions at issue in the deposition, as raised by plaintiffs petition to compel said answers.
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 63 (Thursday, April 2, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 17816]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-07582]


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

 SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


GMB Mezzanine Capital II, L.P. License No. 05/05-0299; Notice 
Seeking Exemption Under Section 312 of the Small Business Investment 
Act, Conflicts of Interest

    Notice is hereby given that GMB Mezzanine Capital II, L.P., 50 
South Sixth Street, Suite 1460, Minneapolis, MN 55402, a Federal 
Licensee under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended 
(the ``Act''), in connection with the financing of a small concern, has 
sought an exemption under Section 312 of the Act and Section 107.730, 
Financings which Constitute Conflicts of Interest of the Small Business 
Administration (``SBA'') Rules and Regulations (13 CFR 107.730). GMB 
Mezzanine Capital II, L.P. proposes to provide subordinated debt 
financing to H & R Accounts, Inc. d.b.a. Avadyne Health, Inc., 7017 
John Deere Parkway, Moline, IL 61265.
    The financing is brought within the purview of Sec.  107.730(a)(4) 
of the Regulations because GMB Mezzanine Capital, L.P., a current 
investor in H & R Accounts, Inc. and an Associate of GMB Mezzanine 
Capital II, L.P., will receive repayment of its subordinated debt 
investment from the proceeds of GMB Mezzanine Capital II, L.P.'s 
proposed investment. Therefore, this transaction is considered 
providing financing to a Small Business to discharge an obligation to 
an Associate, requiring SBA prior written exemption.
    Notice is hereby given that any interested person may submit 
written comments on the transaction, within fifteen days of the date of 
this publication, to the Associate Administrator for the Office of 
Investment and Innovation, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 
Third Street SW., Washington, DC 20416.

    Dated: March 17, 2015.
Javier E. Saade,
Associate Administrator for Office of Investment and Innovation.
[FR Doc. 2015-07582 Filed 4-1-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE CODE 8025-01-P
EXHIBIT 10.3
                                                                    ------------

                              TERMINATION AGREEMENT
                              ---------------------

          THIS TERMINATION AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is made and entered into
effective as of February 28, 2005, by and between DEEP FIELD TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
a New Jersey corporation (the "Company"), f/k/a IVOICE TECHNOLOGY II, INC., and
CORNELL CAPITAL PARTNERS, LP, a Delaware limited partnership (the "Investor").

                                    Recitals:
                                    ---------

          WHEREAS, the Company and the Investor entered into an Standby Equity
Distribution Agreement (the "Standby Equity Distribution"); a Registration
Rights Agreement (the "Registration Rights Agreement"); an Escrow Agreement (the
"Escrow Agreement"); and a Placement Agent Agreement (the "Placement Agent
Agreement", all of which are dated August 13, 2004 (collectively, the Standby
Equity Distribution Agreement, the Registration Rights Agreement, the Escrow
Agreement and Placement Agent Agreement are referred to as the "Transaction
Documents."

          NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and the mutual
promises, conditions and covenants contained herein and in the Transaction
Documents and other good and valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby
acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:

          Termination. Each of the parties to this Agreement hereby terminate
          the Transaction Documents and the respective rights and obligations
          contained therein. As a result of this provision, none of the parties
          shall have any rights or obligations under or with respect to the
          Transaction Documents.




          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have signed and delivered this
Termination Agreement on the date first set forth above.


DEEP FIELD TECHNOLOGIES, INC.                     CORNELL CAPITAL PARTNERS, LP

By:                                               By: Yorkville Advisors, LLC
   -----------------------                        Its: General Partner
Name:  Mark Meller
Title: CEO
                                                  By:
                                                     -------------------------
                                                  Name:  Mark A. Angelo
                                                  Title: Portfolio Manager
<PAGE>

                                  Exhibit 32.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

                                  SECTION 1350

         i.       The certifications required by Rule 13a-14(b) (17 CFR
                  240.13a-14(b)) or Rule 15d-14(b) (17 CFR 240.15d-14(b)) and
                  Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States
                  Code (18 U.S.C. 1350).

         ii.      A certification furnished pursuant to this item will not be
                  deemed "filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act,
                  or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. Such
                  certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by
                  reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the
                  Exchange Act, except to the extent that the registrant
                  specifically incorporates it by reference.

The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Report
pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63
of Title 18, United States Code) and, accordingly, is not being filed as part of
the Report for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and is not incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company,
whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general
incorporation language in such filing.
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-40680

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ALFONSO CASARES,

Defendant-Appellant.

__________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. M-00-CR-20-2

__________________________________________

June 1, 2001

Before POLITZ, DAVIS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Alfonso Casares appeals his jury conviction for conspiracy to commit money

laundering. He argues that there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction. 

He also argues that the district court’s written judgment, in addition to referring to

18 U.S.C. § 1956(h), erroneously cites to § 1956(a)(1)(A)(i) when it should have

cited to § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i).
2

After reviewing the briefs of the parties and the evidence adduced at trial, we

hold that a rational trier of fact could have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt

that Casares conspired to commit money laundering. See United States v. Ortega

Reyna, 148 F.3d 540, 543 (5th Cir. 1998); see also United States v. Wilson, ___

F.3d ___ (5th Cir. Apr. 19, 2001, No. 00-20041), 2001 WL 396700 at *11 (listing

elements of offense). With regard to Casares’ second argument, the Government

concedes that the judgment’s citation to 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(A)(i) was error

which should be corrected. Accordingly, we AFFIRM Casares’ conviction but

REMAND the case to the district court so that the judgment’s citation to 18 U.S.C.

§ 1956(a)(1)(A)(i) can be deleted and replaced with a citation to 18 U.S.C.

§ 1956(a)(1)(B)(i). See United States v. Sapp, 439 F.2d 817, 821 (5th Cir. 1971).

AFFIRMED AND REMANDED.
# C_2016070EN.01000201.xml

| 24.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 70/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

23 February 2016

(2016/C 70/02)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1002 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 123,12 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4618 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,77985 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,3510 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0921 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,4590 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,028 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 307,63 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,3668 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4648 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,2298 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5202 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5116 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,5480 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6452 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5484 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 353,46 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 16,6401 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,1814 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,6260 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 736,51 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,6346 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 52,397 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 82,7990 |
| THB | Thai baht | 39,321 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 4,3570 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 19,8974 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 75,4059 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1002

JPY

Japanese yen

123,12

DKK

Danish krone

7,4618

GBP

Pound sterling

0,77985

SEK

Swedish krona

9,3510

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0921

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,4590

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,028

HUF

Hungarian forint

307,63

PLN

Polish zloty

4,3668

RON

Romanian leu

4,4648

TRY

Turkish lira

3,2298

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5202

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5116

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,5480

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6452

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5484

KRW

South Korean won

1 353,46

ZAR

South African rand

16,6401

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,1814

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,6260

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 736,51

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,6346

PHP

Philippine peso

52,397

RUB

Russian rouble

82,7990

THB

Thai baht

39,321

BRL

Brazilian real

4,3570

MXN

Mexican peso

19,8974

INR

Indian rupee

75,4059

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
EXHIBIT 10.7


 


ASSIGNMENT 


 


FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned,
St. George Investments LLC, a Utah limited liability company (“Assignor”), hereby assigns and transfers to Marijuana
Company of America, Inc., a Utah corporation (“Assignee”), and Assignee hereby receives and accepts, all of Assignor’s
right, title and interest in and to, free and clear of any lien, claim or encumbrance: (a) that certain Secured Convertible Promissory
Note in the original face amount of $170,000.00 issued by Sunset Island Group, Inc., a Colorado corporation (the “Company”),
to the order of Assignor on December 8, 2017 (“Note 1”), issued pursuant to that certain Securities Purchase Agreement
by and between Assignor and the Company of even date therewith (“Purchase Agreement 1”); (b) all other Transaction
Documents (as defined in Purchase Agreement 1) entered into in connection with Purchase Agreement 1; (c) that certain Secured Convertible
Promissory Note in the original face amount of $4,245,000.00 issued by the Company, to the order of Assignor on February 13, 2018 (“Note
2”), issued pursuant to that certain Securities Purchase Agreement by and between Assignor and the Company of even date therewith
(“Purchase Agreement 2”); (d) all other Transaction Documents (as defined in Purchase Agreement 2) entered into in
connection with Purchase Agreement 2 other than the Warrants (as defined in Purchase Agreement 2) and the Investor Notes (as defined in
Purchase Agreement 2); and (e) fifty (50) shares of Series A Preferred Stock of VBF Brands, Inc., a California corporation.


 


WITNESS our hands this __ day of September 2021.


	 	ASSIGNOR:
	 	 	 
	 	ST. GEORGE INVESTMENTS LLC
	 	 	 
	 	By: Fife Trading, Inc., Manager
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	By:	 
	 	 	John M. Fife, President
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	ASSIGNEE:
	 	 	 
	 	MARIJUANA COMPANY OF AMERICA, INC.
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	By:	 
	 	Name:	 
	 	Title:	 
	 	 	 


 




    	 



    	 



    

 


 


 


 


COMPANY CONSENT


 


By signing below, the Company acknowledges and consents to this Assignment.
Without limiting the foregoing, the Company specifically (1) consents to the assignment of Note 1 and Note 2 and the applicable related
transaction documents, and (2) acknowledges and agrees that the Company’s execution hereof is a material inducement to Assignor
and Assignee entering into this Assignment and consummating the transactions contemplated hereby.


 


	 	SUNSET ISLAND GROUP, INC.
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	By:	 
	 	Name:	 
	 	Title: