alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.4

 

	ID Global
    Solutions Corporation
	160 East Lake Brantley
    Drive
	Longwood, Florida 32779


 

		September
                                         25, 2015



 





 








Maksim
Umarov


4305 Diamond
Terrace


Weston,
Florida 33331


 


		Re:	Employment
                                         Agreement (the “Agreement”) dated July 6, 2015 between ID Global Solutions
                                         Corporation (the “Company”) and Maksim Umarov (“Employee”)



 


Dear
Mr. Umarov:


 


Reference
is hereby made to the Agreement. It is hereby agreed to by the parties that the Agreement shall be amended as follows:


 


		1.	Section
                                         1, Paragraph 1 of the Agreement shall be amended as follows:



 


The
Company hereby agrees to initially employ the Executive and the Executive hereby accepts such employment in his capacity as Chief
Technology Officer of the Company according the terms and conditions of this Agreement.


 


		2.	Section
                                         2 (h) shall be added to the Agreement as follows



 


"h.Additional
Compensation. As long as the Executive remains employed by the Company, the Company shall issue to Executive a stock option
to acquire 3,000,000 shares of common stock which shall vest over eight quarters in tranches of 375,000 shares of common stock
per quarter commencing on September 30, 2015.


We
kindly request that you execute this letter below indicating that you agree with the above Amendment and statements.


 


Sincerely,


 


ID
Global Solutions Corporation


 


 


By:________________________


Name:
Thomas Szoke


Title:
CEO


 


 


AGREED
AND ACKNOWLEDGED:


 


 


________________________________


Maksim
Umarov
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

CHARLES EVAN CRAWFORD, AKA Charles Crawford,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 20

- 30036

D.C. No. 3:16

- cr

- 05303

- RBL

- 1

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 17, 2021 * *

Before: FERNANDEZ, BYBEE, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

Charles Evan Crawford appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 120

- month custodial sentence and lifetime term of supervised

release imposed following his bench

- trial conviction for abusive sexual contact

with a minor under 12, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2244(a)(5), 2246(3), and 2247.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

FEB 25 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 20

- 30036

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Crawford contends that the district court procedurally erred and violated his

right to due pro cess by failing to consider and address his arguments

, and by

failing to explain the sentence adequately . We review for plain error, see United

States v. Valencia

- Barragan , 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude

there is none. The record refle cts that the court considered Crawford’s arguments

and provided a sufficient explanation for its decision to impose the below

Guidelines sentence

. See United States v. Carty , 520 F.3d 984, 992

- 93 (9th Cir.

2008) (en banc) ; see also United States v. Ruiz

- Apolonio , 657 F.3d 907, 920 (9th

Cir. 2011) (“The district court is not required to provide a detailed explanation as

to each of its reasons for rejecting every argument made by counsel.”)

.

Crawford also contends the sentence is substantively unreasonable because it

fails to reflect the unique mitigating circumstances of his offens e , including his

cognitive limitations

. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v.

United States , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007) . The sente nce is substantively reasonable in

light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and the totality of the circumstances,

including the seriousness of the offense and the need to protect the public. See

Gall , 552 U.S. at 51.

AFFIRMED.
exv4w1






Exhibit 4.1








	3278 INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE DELAWARE
iGambit Inc.
See Reverse for Certain Definition
Common Stock
this is to certify that is the owner of non-assessable shares of the above corporation transferable
only on the books of the corporation by the holder hereof in person or by duly authorized attorney
upon surrender of this certificate properly endorsed.
Witness, the seal of the corporation and the signatures of its duly authorized officers Dated
secretary chairman
© 1999 corpex banknote co., bay shore n.y.


















 









	The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this certificate,
shall be construed as though they were written out in full according to applicable laws or
regulations:




	TEN COM — as tenants in common UNIT TRANSFERS MIN ACT- Custodian
(Cust) (Minor)
TEN ENT  — as tenants by the entireties under Uniform Transfers to Minors Act
JT TEN  — as joint tenants with right of (State)
survivorship and not as tenants
in common
Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list
For value received ___hereby sell, assign and transfer unto
PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER
IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE
(PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS INCLUDING POSTAL ZIP CODE OF ASSIGNEE)
___Shares represented by the within Certificate, and do hereby irrevocably
constitute and appoint
___Attorney to transfer the said Shares on he books of the within named
Corporation with full power of substitution in the premises.
Dated ___
In presence of
NOTICE: THE SIGNATURE TO THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME AS WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF
THE CERTIFICATE IN EVERY PARTICULAR WITHOUT ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT OR ANY CHANGE WHATEVER.




The shares represented by this certificate have not been registered under the securities act of
1933, as amended (the “Act’) and may not be sold transferred, pledged or hypothecated without an
effective registration statement under the act being then in effect as to such shares or an opinion
of counsel satisfactory to the company that such registration statement is not required in order to
comply with the act.
.( 

. . { �>h W, Shel). Hi (00027'.58 OH)

:

. . . 

. . . .

. . . ..·

. .. 

· · ·.····•• c

i'f�!�t�t�� •·< ····

.

·. . . . . ·

. . .

· . . ) · 

.

. 

SBANDaA F-0.RSIIA�.irtdividu�lly ) . · . . . . . • . · .

· 

.... r�!d �S. �.ers��aln�presentative of. ·� Case N9.! i �CV· O 9 Q:a.

91

· "'*'if<lrJ{E�J,FOR&HA .. �· J�dge: JUDGE ODA

8186$,e -Av:e

.

nue 

.

· . 

. 

. 

. . . ) · ·

· . JTra.itkbn, ()h.10 4�005 .. · 

. · . ).

· · Pl1.tintiff, .

)

}

)

)

·:. :-MIAMtVALLEYHOSPITAL .·· 

: . ; _: · 1_:\Vytj.i�g; S.tr.;�f. . . . - . ·. - ... ' - ) .

. 

) 

)

. )

= I>.�yt(j�, 01.iio 454_09

. . j

':) ··)

•

. _· PREMIERJIEALTn" .

.

. ·. · 1io North Milin Str.ed 

-· · •l)ayt�ii, Oltii> 4S.104 · - .

= •. ·.<J

· :.and

•· B��JAMI!'fJOS.EF� ll1Vf�S.� M.D.

Wright_ State.. U:ni'7ersity .

. 

wo :General Surgery Dept. 

. .· 

· 128Ji)ast Apple Stteet, Suite # 1.ooo

· ·· · · · - :»�yt�»; o.iiio 454�?. 

·

. : . .. . 

·.and . ·

:· - _:nk.. AiF-01un1tPEftli :mfua · 

. . _ .. . · . ;3.Q A1,pte Stret_t . _ ·• 

· · . · . ... •• .. , ·S,iμte: s.zs:i.-_ · · · - .. ·. · - .

· · _ :t.)ayWtt, Ohi<i 4$�0.9 •

. . . : .

· ,. .

·

. . 

.

-. and· 

) 

). 

)

)

)

)

. ) 

)

.)

)

)

. .. )

)

. ) 

)

)

).

)

)

·��----'-�-----------

l 

.. COMfLAINT .

. 

· • Sheailartrtuum LLP • 119 W. Central Pkwy·• 300 Ccnut ltidex Building

Cincinnati. OH 45202:+- SheaL�w.co + 513.621.8333 

: . eq.

:.,.r:.r::�1�f 

\'l J\?i_:-::�/:�·-1 · 

EXHIBIT A

Case: 1:17-cv-00750-SJD Doc #: 1-3 Filed: 11/08/17 Page: 1 of 6 PAGEID #: 7
Case: 1:17-cv-00750-SJD Doc #: 1-3 Filed: 11/08/17 Page: 2 of 6 PAGEID #: 8
Case: 1:17-cv-00750-SJD Doc #: 1-3 Filed: 11/08/17 Page: 3 of 6 PAGEID #: 9
Case: 1:17-cv-00750-SJD Doc #: 1-3 Filed: 11/08/17 Page: 4 of 6 PAGEID #: 10
Case: 1:17-cv-00750-SJD Doc #: 1-3 Filed: 11/08/17 Page: 5 of 6 PAGEID #: 11
Case: 1:17-cv-00750-SJD Doc #: 1-3 Filed: 11/08/17 Page: 6 of 6 PAGEID #: 12
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

United States of America

v. 2:17-cr-54-7

Jamicia R. Gordon 

ORDER

There being no objections, the court hereby adopts the Report

and Recommendation of the magistrate judge (Doc. 200) that the

defendant’s guilty pleas be accepted. The court accepts the

defendant’s pleas of guilty to Counts 1 and 11 of the superseding

indictment, and she is hereby adjudged guilty on those counts. The

court will defer the decision of whether to accept the plea

agreement until the sentencing hearing.

Date: April 6, 2018 s\James L. Graham 

 James L. Graham

 United States District Judge

Case: 2:17-cr-00054-JLG Doc #: 212 Filed: 04/06/18 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 670
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

CHARLES EVAN CRAWFORD, AKA 

Charles Crawford, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 20-30036 

D.C. No. 3:16-cr-05303-RBL-1 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 17, 2021**

Before: FERNANDEZ, BYBEE, and BADE, Circuit Judges. 

Charles Evan Crawford appeals from the district court’s judgment and 

challenges the 120-month custodial sentence and lifetime term of supervised 

release imposed following his bench-trial conviction for abusive sexual contact 

with a minor under 12, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2244(a)(5), 2246(3), and 2247. 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

FEB 25 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 20-30036 

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. 

Crawford contends that the district court procedurally erred and violated his 

right to due process by failing to consider and address his arguments, and by 

failing to explain the sentence adequately. We review for plain error, see United 

States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude 

there is none. The record reflects that the court considered Crawford’s arguments

and provided a sufficient explanation for its decision to impose the belowGuidelines sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th Cir. 

2008) (en banc); see also United States v. Ruiz-Apolonio, 657 F.3d 907, 920 (9th 

Cir. 2011) (“The district court is not required to provide a detailed explanation as 

to each of its reasons for rejecting every argument made by counsel.”). 

Crawford also contends the sentence is substantively unreasonable because it 

fails to reflect the unique mitigating circumstances of his offense, including his 

cognitive limitations. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. 

United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The sentence is substantively reasonable in 

light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and the totality of the circumstances, 

including the seriousness of the offense and the need to protect the public. See 

Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.

AFFIRMED.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20

- 7288

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. LACHARLES HODGES, a/k/a Boogie , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Norfolk

. Robert G. Doumar , Senior District Judge. ( 2:16

- cr - 00018

- RGD

- LRL

- 1 )

Submitted : July 20, 2021 Decided: July 22, 2021

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

La c harles Hodges, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
La c harles Hodges appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). We have reviewed the record and
find no abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. United States v. Hodges , No. 2 : 16

- cr - 00 018

- RGD

- LRL

- 1 (E.D. Va. Aug. 19, 2020). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.
AFFIRMED
Exhibit 99.2

                    FINANCIAL FEDERAL CORPORATION
                     DECLARES QUARTERLY DIVIDEND


NEW YORK, NY:  September 27, 2006 - Financial Federal Corporation
(NYSE: FIF) today announced its Board of Directors declared a $0.10
per share quarterly dividend on its common stock.  The dividend is
payable October 31, 2006 to stockholders of record at the close of
business on October 13, 2006.  The dividend rate is the same as the
prior quarter.


Financial Federal Corporation is an independent financial services
company specializing in financing industrial and commercial equipment
through installment sales and leasing programs for dealers,
manufacturers and end users nationwide.  For more information,
please visit the Company's website at www.financialfederal.com.


CONTACT:  Steven F. Groth, Chief Financial Officer
          (212) 599-8000
Exhibit 32.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Spear & Jackson, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2007 (the "Report"), I, Patrick J.
Dyson certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my
knowledge:

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/ Patrick J. Dyson
--------------------
Patrick J. Dyson
Director and Principal Executive Officer

August 14, 2007
#### Dossie COX *v.*STATE of Arkansas

5294

418 S. W. 2d 799

Opinion delivered September 25, 1967

*61
      *Otis Turner,*for appellant.

*Joe Purcell,*Attorney General; *Don Langston,*Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

George Rose Smith, Justice.

In 1948 the appellant was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. He was still confined to the penitentiary when he filed the present petition under Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1, asserting that his constitutional rights were violated at the original trial. The trial court, after affording the petitioner the hearing contemplated by Rule 1, made the required written findings of fact and conclusions of law. The court dismissed the petition, holding that there was no showing that Cox’s constitutional rights had been infringed. At Cox’s request this appeal was taken.

We affirm the judgment, finding the appeal to he wholly without merit. At the original trial Cox was represented by competent counsel employed by his family. The jury found him to be guilty. At the Rule 1 hearing Cox made no complaint about his original trial and had no competent new evidence to offer. He admitted that “The only thing I can say is that I didn’t do it.” He conceded that he had a chance to make that denial before the jury in 1948. Two other witnesses testified. Cox’s sister stated that Cox’s daughter or stepdaughter, who was two years old in 1948, had said that Cox’s wife later admitted that she was the guilty person. Needless to say, such hearsay evidence is not admissible. Cox’s niece testified that if a certain witness living in Indiana were produced he would testify that he was with Cox when the crime was supposedly committed. Even so, the matter of Cox’s asserted alibi was an issue of fact that was or could have been raised at the trial in 1948. Rule 1 is not intended to provide the petitioner with a new trial *62simply because a jury found him to be guilty, on conflicting testimony.

Affirmed.

Brown, J., disqualified.
Exhibit 32.1

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

In connection  with the Quarterly  Report on Form 10-QSB of Dialex Minerals Inc.
(the Company) for the quarter  ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the  Securities
and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof (the  Report),  I,  Alexander  G.
Stewart, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  hereby certifies,  pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, to the best of his knowledge, 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.

By:                                    /s/ Alexander G. Stewart
                                      ----------------------------------
                                           Alexander G. Stewart
                                           Chief Executive Officer
                                           August 16, 2004

This  certification   accompanies  this  Report  pursuant  to  ss.  906  of  the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and shall not,  except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of ss.
18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
# Euroopan unionin C 183A/2019

| | ISSN 1977-1053 |
| --- | --- |
| Euroopan unionin
  virallinen lehti | C 183A |
| | |
| Suomenkielinen laitos | Tiedonantoja ja ilmoituksia | 62. vuosikerta28. toukokuu 2019 |

ISSN 1977-1053

Euroopan unionin

virallinen lehti

C 183A

Suomenkielinen laitos

Tiedonantoja ja ilmoituksia

62. vuosikerta28. toukokuu 2019

---

| Sisältö | Sivu |
| --- | --- |
| | Oikaisuja |
| 2019/C 183 A/01 | Oikaisu ilmoitukseen avoinna olevasta toimesta Amsterdamissa toimivan Euroopan lääkeviraston (EMA) toimitusjohtaja (Väliaikainen toimihenkilö – palkkaluokka AD 14) COM/2019/20037 ( EUVL C 165 A, 14.5.2019 ) | 1 |

Sisältö

Sivu

Oikaisuja

2019/C 183 A/01

Oikaisu ilmoitukseen avoinna olevasta toimesta Amsterdamissa toimivan Euroopan lääkeviraston (EMA) toimitusjohtaja (Väliaikainen toimihenkilö – palkkaluokka AD 14) COM/2019/20037 ( EUVL C 165 A, 14.5.2019 )

( EUVL C 165 A, 14.5.2019 )

1

---

| FI | |
| --- | --- |

FI

---

Oikaisuja

| 28.5.2019 | FI | Euroopan unionin virallinen lehti | CA 183/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.5.2019

FI

Euroopan unionin virallinen lehti

CA 183/1

---

Oikaisu ilmoitukseen avoinna olevasta toimesta Amsterdamissa toimivan Euroopan lääkeviraston (EMA) toimitusjohtaja (Väliaikainen toimihenkilö – palkkaluokka AD 14) COM/2019/20037

(
  Euroopan unionin virallinen lehti C 165 A, 14. toukokuuta 2019
  )

(2019/C 183 A/01)

Sivulla 6, kohdassa ”Rekisteröitymisen määräaika”:

on:

”Rekisteröityminen päättyy 13. kesäkuuta 2019 klo 12.00 (Brysselin aikaa), jonka jälkeen rekisteröityminen ei ole enää mahdollista.”

pitää olla:

”Rekisteröityminen päättyy 20. kesäkuuta 2019 klo 12.00 (Brysselin aikaa), jonka jälkeen rekisteröityminen ei ole enää mahdollista.”

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON 

JENNIFER HATTON, 

 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 3:18-cv-8 

 vs. 

COMMISSIONER OF District Judge Thomas M. Rose 

SOCIAL SECURITY, Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman 

 

 Defendant. 

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

 The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate 

Judge Michael J. Newman (Doc. #17), to whom this case was referred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b), and noting that no objections have been filed thereto and that the time for filing such 

objections under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) has expired, hereby ADOPTS said Report and 

Recommendation. 

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 

1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. #17) is ADOPTED in full; 

2. The Commissioner’s non-disability determination is REVERSED; 

3. This matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner under the Fourth Sentence 

of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings; and 

4. This case is terminated on the docket of this Court. 

Date: October 18, 2018 *s/Thomas M. Rose 

___________________ ____________________________________ 

 THOMAS M. ROSE 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk July 15, 2010

p0708 

# Order

July 15, 2010

140701

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 140701 COA: 295398 Kalamazoo CC: 2009-001149-FC ROGER ALLEN ATKINSON, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 20, 2010 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

K ELLY



### , C.J., would remand this case for correction of the PSIR.