alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ex101.htm



EXHIBIT 10.1




 


COMPENSATION AGREEMENT







This Compensation Agreement is dated as of April 24, 2013 between LiveWire Ergogenics Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), and Marc J. Ross (the “Consultant”).







WHEREAS, the Company has requested the Consultant to provide the Company with certain SEC-related legal services in connection with its business (the “Services”) on a fixed fee basis, and the Consultant has agreed to provide the Company with the Services through June 15, 2013; and







WHEREAS, the Company wishes to compensate the Consultant with shares of its common stock for such Services through the payment to the Consultant of a fixed fee of 2,500,000 shares of its common stock, par value $0.0001 per share (the “Shares”).







NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants hereinafter stated, it is agreed as follows:







1.           The Company shall issue 2,500,000 Shares to the Consultant, as consideration for the Services rendered through June 15, 2013.  The Company shall register all 2,500,000 Shares on a Form S-8 under this Compensation Agreement.  The registration statement shall be filed promptly following the execution of this Compensation Agreement.







IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Compensation Agreement has been executed by the parties as of the date first above written.


 




	 	

CONSULTANT

	 
	 	 	 	 
	
 

	
By: 

	 	 
	 	 	

Marc J. Ross

	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 






	 	

The Company:

	 
	 	 	 
	 	LIVEWIRE ERGOGENICS INC.	 
	 	 	 	 
	
 

	
By: 

	 	 
	 	 	William J. Hodson	 
	 	 	Chief Executive officer
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 3102 

To amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to preserve commissionfree trading and investor freedom for the people of the United States 

by prohibiting the Securities and Exchange Commission from banning 

payment for order flow, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 28, 2021 

Mr. TOOMEY introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to preserve 

commission-free trading and investor freedom for the 

people of the United States by prohibiting the Securities 

and Exchange Commission from banning payment for 

order flow, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Investor Freedom Act 

5 of 2021’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3102 IS

1 SEC. 2. SAFE HARBOR FOR PAYMENT FOR ORDER FLOW. 

2 Section 28 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 

3 (15 U.S.C. 78bb) is amended by adding at the end the 

4 following: 

5 ‘‘(g) PAYMENT FOR ORDER FLOW.— 

6 ‘‘(1) DEFINITION.—In this subsection, the term 

7 ‘payment for order flow’ has the meaning given the 

8 term in section 240.10b–10(d) of title 17, Code of 

9 Federal Regulations, as in effect on the date of en10 actment of this subsection. 

11 ‘‘(2) APPLICABILITY.— 

12 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—No broker or dealer, 

13 or any person associated with a broker or deal14 er, using the mails, or any means or instrumen15 tality of interstate commerce, shall be deemed 

16 to have acted unlawfully or to have breached a 

17 duty under State or Federal law solely by rea18 son of having received payment for order flow. 

19 ‘‘(B) RESTRICTION.—Neither the Commis20 sion nor any national securities exchange or 

21 registered securities association may promul22 gate any rule or regulation that prohibits, lim23 its, or directs the receipt or use of payment for 

24 order flow by— 

25 ‘‘(i) a broker or dealer; or 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 3102 IS

1 ‘‘(ii) any person associated with a 

2 broker or dealer. 

3 ‘‘(C) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing 

4 in this subsection may be construed to impair 

5 or limit the power of the Commission, any na6 tional securities exchange, or any registered se7 curities association with respect to any other 

8 duties applicable to the execution of a cus9 tomer’s order by a broker or dealer.’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection withthe Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Sonus Networks, Inc. (the “Company”)for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, EllenB. Richstone, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)   the Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)   the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.
| Date: May 8, 2006 | /s/ ELLEN B.  RICHSTONE                                                    |
|------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                   | Ellen B. Richstone*Chief Financial Officer  (Principal Financial Officer)* |

 

----
mp 2.7.33 - Peter N. Schweitzer (U.S. Geological Survey)
Error (line 37): improper value for Calendar_Date
Error (line 99): improper value for Horizontal_Positional_Accuracy_Value
Error (line 186): improper value for Source_Scale_Denominator
Error (line 189): Time_Period_Information permits only one of Single_Date/Time or Multiple_Dates/Times or Range_of_Dates/Times 
Error (line 251): Horizontal_Coordinate_System_Definition permits only one of Geographic, Planar, or Local
Error (line 252): Geographic_Coordinate_Units is required in Geographic
Error (line 253): improper value for Latitude_Resolution
Error (line 254): improper value for Longitude_Resolution
Error (line 255): Planar requires one of Map_Projection or Grid_Coordinate_System or Local_Planar 
9 errors: 2 too_many, 2 missing, 5 bad_value
#### AARON CRONCKHITE vs. OLE ELLEFSON and Wife, Appellants.

APPEAL PROM circuit COURT, WAUPACCA COUNTY.

Heard July 19.]

[Decided August 16, 1859.

*Foreclosure*— Amendment—Appeal.

After a sale of mortgaged premises upon a foreclosure of a mortgage, the complainant moved the court, and obtained an order for leave to amend the summons and complaint, hy adding a new defendant as a subsequent incum-brancer. This is not an appealable order.

This case was brought into this court by an appeal from an order made in the court below, under the following circumstances : On the 27th of May, 1858, the plaintiff obtained a judgment by foreclosure upon a mortgage made by the defendants; and a sale of the mortgaged premises took place, September 18, 1858. Before the commencement of the action the defendants had encumbered the mortgaged premises to Olof E. Dreutzer and N. P. Judson; but they were not made parties defendants to the action for the reason that the plaintiff did not know they were such incumbran-cers until after the judgment had been entered. On the 26th of May, 1859, the plaintiff moved the court to set aside the judgment, sale and all subsequent proceedings in the action; and that the plaintiff amended the summons and complaint by making Dreutzer and Judson parties. On the 27th of May, 1859, the circuit court entered the order from which *253this appeal is taken; and which after reciting the motion proceeds:

“ Ordered. That, the judgment, sale and all subsequent proceedings in the action be set aside and the plaintiff be allowed to amend the summons and complaint therein by adding Olof E. Dreutzer and N. P. Judson as defendants. It is further ordered, as the terms of granting said motion, that the plaintiff further amend the said complaint, by striking out that part of the prayer for relief, in said complaint, which prays for judgment of deficiency against any of said defendants, in case there should be any deficiency on the sale of the said mortgaged premises.-”

*Wheeler*& *Kimball,*

on the 13th of July, 1859, served by mail a notice of motion for the 19th ; and on the latter day moved this court to dismiss this appeal, for the reason that the order cannot be carried to the supreme court by appeal, according to the provisions of the Revised Statutes.

*Smith, Keyes*& Gay, for the appellants,

opposed the motion, because: 1. The service of the notice was too short; 2. The order was an appealable order; and, 3. The order grants a new trial in fact. Rev. Stat., chap. 140, § 40; id. chap. 39; id. chap 139, § 10.

*By the Court,*

DixoN, C. J.

The motion of the respondent must be allowed, and the appeal dismissed. The order was not appealable.
Michigan Supreme

Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

March 27, 2015 

# Order

March 27 , 2015

1505 8 2

- 7 & ( 70 )

MORGAN T. FISHER

, Plaintiff

- Appel lant

,

v

JORDI LLORE JUSTRIBO

, Defendant

- Appell ee

. SC: 1505 8 2

- 7

COA: 314802; 315214; 315622; 316073; 317059; 317359

Leelanau CC: 2009

- 008198

- DM

________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the stipulation to dismiss the application for leave to appeal is GRANTED

. The dismissal is with prejudice and without costs or fees to either

party.
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 69 (Friday, April 10, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 19358]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-08273]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Proposal Review Panel for Materials Research; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub., L. 92-
463 as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting:

    Name: Proposal Review Panel for Materials Research (DMR) #1203--
Site visit review of the Los Alamos arm of the National High 
Magnetic Field Laboratory (NHMFL) at Los Alamos, NM.
    Dates & Times
June 3, 2015; 7:00 p.m.-8:45 p.m.
June 4, 2015; 7:30 a.m.-8:30 p.m.
June 5, 2015; 7:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m.
    Place: Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM.
    Type of Meeting: Part open.
    Contact Person: Dr. Thomas Rieker, Program Director, Division of 
Materials Research, Room 1065, National Science Foundation, 4201 
Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230, Telephone (703) 292-4914.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning further support of the NHMFL.

Agenda

Wednesday, June 3, 2015

7:00 p.m.-8:45 p.m. Closed--Briefing of panel

Thursday, June 4, 2015

7:30 a.m.-4:15 p.m. Open--Review of the NHMFL
4:15 p.m.-6:00 p.m. Closed--Executive Session
6:00 p.m.-8:30 p.m. Open--Dinner

Friday, June 5, 2015

7:30 a.m.-9:00 a.m. Open--Review of the NHMFL
9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m. Closed--Executive Session, Draft and Review 
Report
    Reason for Closing: The work being reviewed may include 
information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information; financial data, such as salaries and personal 
information concerning individuals associated with the MRSEC. These 
matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552 b(c), (4) and (6) of the 
Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: April 7, 2015.
Suzanne Plimpton,
Acting, Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2015-08273 Filed 4-9-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6836

ANTHONY DOVE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus NORTH CAROLINA STATE EMPLOYEES CREDIT UNION; NORTH CAROLINA LOCAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES CREDIT UNION; LYNN EUBANKS; SID PHILLIPS; CHRISTOPHER C. HILL, Detective; LENOIR COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT; LENOIR COUNTY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States Dist rict Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-02-25-4-H) Submitted: October 9, 2002 Decided: January 8, 2003 Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Dove, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew Scott Sullivan, Jonathan Mark Herring, WHITE & ALLEN, P.A., Kinston, North Carolina; Mark Allen Davis, WOMBLE, CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE & RICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Anthony Dove appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil action against Defendants. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Dove v. North Carolina State Employees Credit Union , No. CA-02-25-4-H (E.D.N.C. May 15, 2002). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 23.2


                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of our
report dated January 29, 1999 on the financial statements of JDR Holdings, Inc.
and Subsidiaries for the period from May 29, 1997 to December 31, 1997 and for
the year ended December 31, 1998 included in this Form 10-K, into NCO Group,
Inc.'s previously filed Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File No.
333-42743), (File 333-62131), (File No. 333-73087), (File No. 333-83229) and
(File No. 333-87493) and on Form S-3 (File No. 333-86473).


                                            /s/ Arthur Andersen LLP
                                            -----------------------


Philadelphia, Pa.,
  March 23, 2000
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 21


              List of Subsidiaries of Swissray International, Inc.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                         Name Under Which
           Name                      State of Incorporation               Does Business
           ----                      ----------------------               -------------
<S>                                  <C>                            <C>

SR - Medical AG                            Switzerland               SR - Medical AG

Teleray AG                                 Switzerland               Teleray AG

Swissray Deutschland                       Germany                   Swissray Deutschland
(Rontgentechnik) GmbH (formerly                                      (Rontgentechnik) GmbH
known as SR-Medical GmbH)

Swissray Medical Systems Inc.,             Delaware                  Swissray Medical
(formerly Swissray Corporation)                                      Systems Inc.,

Empower, Inc.                              New York                  Swissray Empower Inc.

Swissray Health Care, Inc.                 Delaware                  Swissray Health Care,
                                                                     Inc.
</TABLE>
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 18

- 00457

- CV
In the Interest of A.B.V., a child
On Appeal from the 267th District Court of Victoria County , Texas Trial Cause No. 17

- 01

- 80451

- A

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED . Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appellant , A.N.V. We further order this decision certified below for observ ance. February 14, 2019
# Official Journal C 2/2023

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 2 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 664 January 2023 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 2

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 664 January 2023

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2023/C 2/01 | Communication from the Commission – Financial sanctions in infringement proceedings | 1 |
| 2023/C 2/02 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10944 – MITSUBISHI / HERE) (
  1
  ) | 17 |

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2023/C 2/01

Communication from the Commission – Financial sanctions in infringement proceedings

1

2023/C 2/02

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10944 – MITSUBISHI / HERE) (
  1
  )

1

17

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2023/C 2/03 | Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations: – 2,50 % on 1 January 2023 – Euro exchange rates | 18 |
| 2023/C 2/04 | Summary of Commission Decision of 10 January 2022 rejecting its jurisdiction within the meaning of Articles 1 and 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (Case C.1886 – Iliad – Article 265 Invitation to Act)
  (notified under document C(2022) 78) | 19 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2023/C 2/03

Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations: – 2,50 % on 1 January 2023 – Euro exchange rates

18

2023/C 2/04

Summary of Commission Decision of 10 January 2022 rejecting its jurisdiction within the meaning of Articles 1 and 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (Case C.1886 – Iliad – Article 265 Invitation to Act)
  (notified under document C(2022) 78)

(notified under document C(2022) 78)

19

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
EXHIBIT
23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC
ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in
the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-88921) pertaining to the
Panavision Inc. Stock Option Plan of our report dated March 17, 2006,
except for Note 23, as to which the date is March 30, 2006, with
respect to the consolidated financial statements of Panavision Inc.
included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December
31, 2005.

/s/ ERNST & YOUNG
LLP

Los Angeles, CaliforniaMarch 30,
2006

---
#### ORVILLE BARNES, Appelant, *vs.*JERUSHA MERRICK, Ex., Respondent.

APPEAL PROM THE RACINE CIRCUIT COURT.

A motion for a new trial is addressed to the discretion of the Gourt, and this court will not interfere by reversing the judgment, unless there has been a gross abuse of that discretion on the part of the court below.

This was an action commenced before a Justice of the' Peace before whom a trial was held, a judgment rendered for the plaintiff, and the defendant appealed to the Circuit Court. Upon trial of the cause in the Circuit Court, the plaintiff again recovered, and the defendant moved a new trial, principally upon the ground of surprise — that three certain witnesses named in his affidavit, testified differently from what he had supposed they would, and at variance with the fact — which motion, upon argument, the Circuit Court overruled, and from this order overruling the motion for a new trial, the defendant appealed to this court.

*W. P. Lyon*for Appellant.

*J. W. Gary*for Eespondent, cited Cook vs. Holmes, 5 Wis. 107; State vs. Lamont, 2 Id., 437; Moss vs. Yroman, 5 Wis., 147; 1 Graham & Waterman’s New Trials, 176, 199; 3 Greenleaf E., 77.

*By the Cowrt,*

Cole J.

This court has so frequently decided the only question presented in this case, which is, that applications for new trials are mainly addressed to the sound dis*58cretion of the court in which they are made, and that this court will not interfere and reverse a judgment on account of an alleged error in denying a motion for a new trial, unless there has been a gross abuse of this discretion on the part of the Circuit Court, that it would seem as if it was about time that this point at least was no longer open for argument here.

The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed with costs.
Exhibit 13.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with the annual report of Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group, Inc. on
Form 20-F for the year ended March 31, 2011 (the Report) for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act), and Section 1350
of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

I, Tetsuya Kubo, Representative Director of Sumitomo Mitsui Financial
Group, Inc., certify that, to my knowledge:

1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Exchange Act; and

2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition, and results of operations of Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries.

Date: July 29, 2011



|                 |  |                        
|---------------- |  | -----------------------
|/s/ Tetsuya Kubo
|Name:            |  | Tetsuya Kubo           
|Title:           |  | Representative Director
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3168 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 3168

 To amend the White Mountain Apache Tribe Water Rights Quantification 
 Act of 2010 to modify the enforceability date for certain provisions, 
                        and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            November 4, 2021

 Mr. Kelly (for himself and Ms. Sinema) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the White Mountain Apache Tribe Water Rights Quantification 
 Act of 2010 to modify the enforceability date for certain provisions, 
                        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. WHITE MOUNTAIN APACHE TRIBE RURAL WATER SYSTEM.

    (a) Enforceability Date.--
            (1) In general.--Section 309(d)(2) of the White Mountain 
        Apache Tribe Water Rights Quantification Act of 2010 (Public 
        Law 111-291; 124 Stat. 3088; 133 Stat. 2669) is amended by 
        striking ``2023'' each place it appears and inserting ``2025''.
            (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 3(b)(2) of the White 
        Mountain Apache Tribe Rural Water System Loan Authorization Act 
        (Public Law 110-390; 122 Stat. 4191; 124 Stat. 3092; 133 Stat. 
        2669) is amended by striking ``beginning on'' and all that 
        follows through the period at the end and inserting ``beginning 
        on May 1, 2025.''.
    (b) Funding.--Section 312(e)(2)(B) of the White Mountain Apache 
Tribe Water Rights Quantification Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-291; 124 
Stat. 3095) is amended by striking ``$11,000,000'' and inserting 
``$261,000,000''.
                                 <all>
```