alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ex-10_1.htm










Santaro Interactive Entertainment Company S-1/A


 


Exhibit 10.1


 



TECHNOLOGY ASSIGNMENT AGREEMENT







This agreement (the “Agreement”) is made this 5th day of February, 2010, between Aaron J. Berryman (“Assignor”), and Santaro Interactive Entertainment Company (“Assignee”) (Assignee and Assignor each a “Party” and collectively the “Parties”).







WHEREAS, Assignor has proprietary technology for the following invention:  Character Adapted Gaming Platform (the “Invention”):







WHEREAS, the Parties have agreed that Assignor shall assign all right and title to the Invention to the Assignee for the sum of $5,000.







NOW THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration as set forth below, the sum, sufficiency and receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereby agree as follows:








	
  

	
1.

	
Assignment.  Assignor hereby irrevocably assigns to Assignee all right, title and interest in the Invention, in exchange for the sum of $5,000, and Assignee hereby accepts such assignment.








	
  

	
2.

	
Intellectual Property.  The Assignor shall cooperate with the Assignee with regard to the filing of a patent application for the Invention, or such other intellectual property protection, as Assignee shall, in its sole discretion, deem appropriate.  However, Assignor shall have no right, title, or interest in such patent application or other intellectual property protection.








	
  

	
3.

	
Amendments or Waiver.  This Agreement may be changed, waived, discharged or terminated only by a writing signed by all Parties hereto.  No delay or omission by any party in exercising any right with respect hereto shall operate as waiver.  A waiver on any one occasion shall not be construed as a bar to, or waiver of, any right or remedy on any future occasion.








	
  

	
4.

	
Severability.  To the extent any provision of this Agreement is prohibited by or invalid under applicable law, such provision shall be ineffective to the extent of such prohibition, or invalidity, without invalidating the remainder of such provision or the remaining provisions of this Agreement.








	
  

	
5.

	
Governing Law.  This Agreement shall be construed and interpreted in accordance with the internal laws of the State of Virginia without giving effect to the conflict of laws principles thereof.








	
  

	
6.

	
Entire Agreement.  This Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement between the Parties relating to the subject matter herein.








	
  

	
7.

	
Binding Effect.  All of the terms of this Agreement, as amended from time to time, shall be binding upon, inure to the benefit of and be enforceable by the respective heirs, successors and assigns of the Parties.












IN WITNESS WHEREOF the undersigned agree to the terms of this Agreement as of the date first written above:








	
ASSIGNEE

	  	
ASSIGNOR


	  	  	  
	

/s/ James D. Edsall



	  	

/s/ Aaron J. Berryman




	

Santaro Interactive Entertainment Company


James D. Edsall, President and Director

	  	
Aaron J. Berryman
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM UNAUDITED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000             JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         618,264                 417,666
<SECURITIES>                                    20,700                  20,700
<RECEIVABLES>                                  152,382                  17,661
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               914,037                 499,868
<PP&E>                                         846,860                 611,067
<DEPRECIATION>                                 286,744                 174,650
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,533,920                 995,351
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          887,602                 686,029
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                    22,700,917              20,950,152
<OTHER-SE>                                (22,054,599)            (20,640,830)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,533,920                 995,351
<SALES>                                        238,600                  10,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               238,600                  10,000
<CGS>                                          152,583                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           (1,413,769)                 589,597
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                     849
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,413,769)               (590,446)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,413,769)               (590,446)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,413,769)               (590,446)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.02)                   (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                       0


</TABLE>
22237

#### Eloise AUSTIN, Respondent, v. Sammie TAYLOR, Appellant.

(326 S. E. (2d) 656)

Supreme Court

*James Spencer Verner,*Newbery, *for appellant.*

*Samuel Price,*Newberry, *for respondent.*

Submitted Jan. 23, 1985.

Decided Feb. 19, 1985.

Littlejohn, Chief Justice:

This paternity action was commenced by the respondent-mother seeking child support from the appellant-putative father for a minor child born September 20,1982. The action was commenced on November 8,1982, and a hearing resulting from a rule to show cause was held on November 16,1982. At the conclusion of the mother’s evidence, the putative father, through his attorney, moved the court for an involuntary non-suit which was granted. On December 13,1982, a written order of the Family Court was filed finding that the mother had not presented any credible evidence that the putative father was in fact the father of the child. The entire action was dismissed with prejudice.

*415On December 16th, the mother, now with an attorney, filed amotion asking that the order of the judge be set aside and a new trial granted. The motion was granted. The putative father appeals.

The transcript of record is composed merely of the agreed statement plus the exceptions interposed by the putativé father; The record is patently insufficient to warrant a review by this Court. *See South Carolina Highway Department v. Meredith,*241 S. C. 306, 128 S. E. (2d) 179 (1962) and *Wilson v. American Casualty Company,*252 S. C. 393, 166 S. E. (2d) 797 (1969).

Over and above this deficiency of the record so far as the statement of the case indicates, the judge undertook to dismiss the action on its merits at what would appear to be a petition for temporary relief growing out of a rule to show cause. It would appear that no answer had been filed, and the merits of the case were not truly before the court. Accordingly, the mother has been denied a trial in the usual fashion on the merits. Upon remand after an answer is filed, the case should proceed .to a trial on the merits.

Affirmed.

Ness, Gregory, Harwell and Chandler, JJ., concur.
ex10-28.htm



Exhibit 10.28


 



Sales contract of Industrial and Mineral Products


 


                      Contract No.JY-03


Seller: Second factory, Taiyuan Coal Gasification Co., Ltd                           Address: in the factory


Purchaser: Taiyuan Hongxing Carbon black Co., Ltd                    Date: 01/2008







1. Product name, price, delivery time and quantity


 



	
Product Name

	
Trademark

	
Model

	
Manufa-cuturer

	
Unit

	
Quantity

	
Price


(RMB)

	
Amount


(RMB)

	
Remarks


	
Coal Tar

	  	  	  	
Ton

	
1200

	
2300

	  	
1. The price in this agreement is current market price 2. There is 17% tax included in the price.3. The quantity is adjustable based on the output .


	
Total

	  	  	  





 


2. Quality Standard: YB/T5075-93


3. The conditions and duration of which supplier is responsible for: Within 2 days after the pickup of goods


4. Packaging standards, supply and recycle of packaging materials


5. Random spare, number and supply method of accessories


6. Reasonable wear and tear and method of calculation: It shall be based on the weights calculated from seller


7. Proprietary rights of the products are transferred upon the completion of the weighting, but proprietary rights belong to the seller if the purchaser fails to make the payment.


8. Place and means of delivery: Delivered to the designated place


9. Means of transport, expense for transport and related items


10. Acceptance criteria, methods, date and period: the Quality Standard: YB/T5075-93, the goods shall be stored in separate place and dispute over quality shall be settled within 2 days after the arrival of goods in the purchaser’s warehouse. The seller will not take the responsibility if the goods are mixed with other products in storage and it exceeds the 2 days period stated above.


11. Installation and test of equipment set


12. Means, date and place of settlement: The price is subject to the market condition, and the quantity is determined by the actual number occurred.


13. Means of guaranty (the guaranty agreement could be made in addition to this one )


14. The condition of termination of this contract: The purchase fails to perform according to the agreement within one month and the seller deduct the corresponding amount of goods, the purchase fails to perform for 3 consecutive months.


15. Default responsibility: It shall be settled according to the contract law of PRC


16. The means of dispute solution: It shall be settled through negotiation, or mediated by the business and administrative regulators,or go for


a. arbitration


b. lawsuit


17. The contract valid period: From January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2008


18. Other unspecified issues shall be settled through negotiation.


 



	
Supplier:


Company Name (Seal):


Company Address:


Legal Representative:


Entrusted  agent :


Telephone:


Opening  bank:


Bank Account:


Zip Code:

	
Buyer:


Company Name:


Company Address:


Legal Representative:


Entrusted  agent:


Telephone:


Opening  bank:


Bank Account:


Zip Code:

	
Attestation:


 


 


 


Attestation Organization


Manager


 


Date:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

KIMBERLY HILL : CASE NO. 3:17-cv-00334

Plaintiff, : Judge Thomas M. Rose

vs. :

NOTICE OF FILING DEPOSITION

CITY OF DAYTON POLICE : TRANSCRIPT

DEPARTMENT, ET AL.

Defendant. :

_________________________________________________________________

Defendants hereby give notice of the filing of the Deposition Transcript of

Kimberly Hill to be used in support of its Summary Judgment Motion filed with 

this Court. 

Respectfully submitted,

BARBARA J. DOSECK

DIRECTOR OF LAW

By S/ LEONARD J. BAZELAK

Leonard J. Bazelak #0064023

Senior Attorney

John C. Musto #0071512

Chief Trial Counsel

101 West Third Street

P.O. Box 22

Dayton, Ohio 45401

Tel. (937) 333-4105

Fax (937) 333-3628

Case: 3:17-cv-00334-TMR Doc #: 14 Filed: 04/16/19 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 71
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing has been sent by electronic mail upon 

the following, this 16th day of April, 2018:

Chanda L. Brown (0081076)

Sean L. Walton (0088401)

WALTON + BROWN, LLP

20 S. Third Street, Suite 210

Columbus, Ohio 43215

Telephone: (614) 636-3476

Facsimile: (614) 636-3453

Email: cbrown@waltonbrownlaw.com

swalton@waltonbrownlaw.com

S/ LEONARD J. BAZELAK

Leonard J. Bazelak #0064023

Senior Attorney

Case: 3:17-cv-00334-TMR Doc #: 14 Filed: 04/16/19 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 72
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Project No. 13213-003; Project No. 13214-003]

                    a.                     *Project Names and Numbers:*                     From upstream to downstream order, Heidelberg Hydroelectric Project No. 13213, and Ravenna Hydroelectric Project No. 13214.                

                    b.                     *Date and Time of Meeting:*                     April 28, 2015; 10:00 p.m. Eastern Time (11:00 p.m. Central Time).                

                    c.                     *FERC Contact:*                     Michael Spencer,                     *michael.spencer@ferc.gov*                     or (202) 502-6093.                

                    d.                     *Purpose of Meeting:*                     To discuss the concerns raised in the FWS letter, filed March 31, 2015, about endangered species for the projects listed above.                

e. A summary of the meeting will be prepared and filed for the projects' records.

                    f. All local, state, and federal agencies, Indian tribes, and other interested parties are invited to participate by phone. Please contact Michael Spencer at                     *michael.spencer@ferc.gov*                     or (202) 502-6093 by close of business Tuesday, November 25, 2014, to R.S.V.P. and to receive specific instructions on how to participate.                

Dated: April 13, 2015.

Kimberly D. Bose,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2015-08879 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

INSIGNIA SOLUTIONS PLC

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

      In connection with the Amendment to Annual Report of Insignia Solutions
plc (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Mark E. McMillan, Chief Executive Officer, Principal Financial Officer and
Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

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

      (2)   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and result of operations
            of the Company.

/s/ Mark E. McMillan
-----------------------
Mark E. McMillan
Chief Executive Officer,
Principal Accounting Officer
and Principal Financial Officer
May 2, 2005
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-13-00087-CV

In re Tracy D. Williams, Rebecca 

Vanderbilt Reid, and Eugene P. 

Personne

§

§

§

§

§

Original Proceeding

From the 415th District Court

of Parker County (CV-12-1742)

April 8, 2013

Opinion by Justice Gardner

JUDGMENT

This court has considered relators’ petition for writ of injunction and is of 

the opinion that relief should be granted. Accordingly, relators’ petition is

granted. It is ordered that until this court has finally determined relators’ pending 

interlocutory appeal in cause number 02-13-00089-CV, or until otherwise ordered 

by this court, respondent and its officers, agents, employees, attorneys, and all 

those acting in concert or participation with respondent are immediately enjoined 

from:

1. Entering upon relators’ land (2267, 2228, 2300 Greg 

Street, Azle, Parker County, Texas 76020) to conduct any work 

whatsoever except within the 50-foot strip of land already cleared 

through relators’ property, with ingress to and egress from such strip 

of land, and then only according to the terms of the 1953 LSG 

Easement as limited by Tex. Nat. Res. Code Ann. § 111.0194 and 

Texas Law;
2. Cutting or causing to be cut any vegetation whatsoever 

on the relators’ property except that which might have grown over 

the 50-foot strip of land already cleared through relators’ property;

3. Damaging or causing damage to Ms. Williams’ home, 

Ms. Reid’s water well, or other real or personal property situated on 

relators’ property; and

4. Harassing relators in any way, including, but not limited 

to in person, in writing or by telephone, or otherwise attempting to 

improperly coerce relators into allowing Atmos to enter upon and 

damage their land.

It is further ordered that respondent Atmos Energy Corporation shall pay 

all costs of this proceeding, for which let execution issue.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By_________________________________

 Justice Anne Gardner
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1
                         Consent of Independent Auditors

The Partners of
Star Gas Partners, L.P.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements No.
333-75701 on Form S-3 and Nos. 333-49751, 333-94031, 333-40138 and 333-46714 on
Form S-4 of Star Gas Partners, L.P. of our report dated December 14, 2000,
relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Star Gas Partners, L.P. and
Subsidiaries as of September 30, 1999 and 2000 and the related consolidated
statements of operations, partners' capital and cash flows for each of the years
in the three-year period ended September 30, 2000 and related schedule, which
report appears in the September 30, 2000 annual report on Form 10-K of Star Gas
Partners, L.P.

/s/ KPMG LLP
Stamford, Connecticut
December 14, 2000
0407

#### BURTON INTERNATIONAL, INC., Appellant, v. Robert C. WASSON, Chairman and Charles N. Plowden and John H. LaFitte, Jr., Constituting the Members of the South Carolina Tax Commission, Respondents.

(327 S. E. (2d) 373)

Court of Appeals

*572
      *Frank A. Graham, Jr.,*Columbia, *for appellant.*

*T. Travis Medlock, Atty. Gen., Daniel R. McLeod, Retired Atty. Gen., Joe L. Allen, Jr., Deputy Atty. Gen.,*and *Ray N. Stevens,*Columbia, *for respondents.*

Heard Dec. 13, 1984.

Decided March 6, 1985.

Bell, Judge:

This is an action to recover $17,766.74 in sales taxes, penalties and interest assessed on the gross proceeds of the sale of eight motor trucks by Burton International to Senn Trucking Company. Burton appeals from the trial judge’s order denying recovery. We affirm.

Burton is a South Carolina corporation engaged in the retail sale of large trucks. Its principal place of business is in Columbia. Senn Trucking, also incorporated in South Carolina, is a common carrier licensed by the appropriate authorities for both intra- and interstate motor freight carriage. Senn purchased the trucks from Burton in April 1978 *573and paid the freight charges from the point of manufacture to Columbia, where they were unloaded by Burton and delivered to Senn. Senn’s president executed an affidavit to the effect that the trucks were delivered in South Carolina. No sale tax was collected at that time. Following an audit in 1980, Burton was assessed nearly $18,000 in sales taxes, penalties and interest arising from the sale of Senn. Burton paid the full amount under protest in June 1981, then brought this action pursuant to Section 12-35-1440, Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1976, for its recovery.

Burton contends, first, that the assessment amounts to a tax on interstate commerce, prohibited by the commerce clause of the United States Constitution. U. S. Const. art. I, sec. 8, cl. 3. The tax in issue here was levied not on the interstate activity of the trucks but on the sale of the trucks. The sale was a local activity subject to tax in South Carolina. *International Harvester Co. v. Wasson,*281 S. C. 458, 316 S. E. (2d) 378, *cert.*denied, _ U. S. _, 105 S. Ct. 250, 83 L. Ed. (2d) 188 (1984). Burton argues that the tax imposed by South Carolina must pass muster under the four pronged analysis announced in *Maryland v. Louisiana,*451 U. S. 725, 101 S. Ct. 2114, 68 L. Ed. (2d) 576 (1981). Since we find the tax here to be local in character, that analysis is not applicable. *See International Harvester Co. v. Wasson, supra.*

Burton’s second argument is that imposition of the tax on motor truck common carriers violates equal protection because a like tax is not assessed on rail common carriers. U. S. Const. amend. XIV; S. C. Const. art. I, sec. 3. This issue was addressed by our Supreme Court in *Senn Trucking Co. v. Wasson,*280 S. C. 279, 312 S. E. (2d) 252, *cert.*denied, _ U. S _, 104 S. Ct. 3537, 82 L. Ed. 841 (1984), and decided contrary to Burton’s position.

The decision of the circuit court is

Affirmed.

Sanders, C. J., and Shaw, J., concur.
##### 



FIRST SHARES BANCORP, INC.

Exhibit 99.1

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

The undersigned hereby certifies, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his or
her capacity as an officer of First Shares Bancorp, Inc. (First Shares),
that, to his or her knowledge:



|(1) |  | the Quarterly Report of First Shares on Form 10-QSB for the period ended
March 31, 2003, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|--- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   
|(2) |  | the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of First
Shares Bancorp, Inc.                                

Dated: May 15, 2003



| | /s/ Jerry R. Engle
Jerry R. Engle
President and Chief
Executive Officer
| | -----------------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to First Shares Bancorp, Inc. and will be retained by First Shares
Bancorp, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.