alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ex1026.htm












LOAN AGREEMENT


September 24, 2015







City Group LLC (the “Lender”) of 1201 Orange Street, Suite 600, Wilmington, DE 19801, advanced total of USD$20,000 (the “Principal Sum”) to Cell MedX Corp. (the “Borrower”) of 74 N. Pecos Road, Suite D, Henderson, NV, 89074.  The Lender advanced the funds on September 24, 2015.


 


The Borrower agrees to repay the Principal Sum on demand, together with interest calculated and compounded monthly at the rate of six (6) per cent per year (the “Interest”) from September 24, 2015.  The Borrower is liable for repayment for the Principal Sum and accrued Interest and any costs that the Lender incurs in trying to collect the Principal Sum and the Interest.


 


The Borrower will evidence the debt and its repayment of the Principal Sum and the Interest with a promissory note in the attached form.


 




	
LENDER

	 	
BORROWER


	
City Group LLC

	 	
Cell MedX Corp.


	 	 	 
	
Per:

	 	
Per:


	 	 	 
	
/s/ Tom Sharp

	 	
/s/ Yanika Silina


	
Tom Sharp, Director

	 	
Yanika Silina, CFO


	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 

















  





  











  













PROMISSORY NOTE







Principal Amount:  USD$20,000                                                                                                          September 24, 2015












For value received Cell MedX Corp., (the “Borrower”) promises to pay on demand to the order of City Group LLC (the “Lender”) the sum of $20,000 lawful money of United States of America (the “Principal Sum”) together with interest on the Principal Sum from September 24, 2015 (“Effective Date”) both before and after maturity, default and judgment at the Interest Rate as defined below.







For the purpose of this promissory note, Interest Rate means six (6) per cent per year.  Interest at the Interest Rate must be calculated and compounded monthly not in advance from and including the Effective Date (for an effective rate of 6.17% per annum calculated monthly), and is payable together with the Principal Sum when the Principal Sum is repaid.







The Borrower may repay the Principal Sum and the Interest in whole or in part at any time.







The Borrower waives presentment, protest, notice of protest and notice of dishonour of this promissory note.




 




	 	
BORROWER


	 	
Cell MedX Corp.


	 	 
	 	
Per:


	 	 
	 	
/s/ Yanika Silina


	 	
Yanika Silina, CFO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

AT DAYTON, OHIO

IRON WORKERS DISTRICT COUNCIL 

OF SOUTHERN OHIO & VICINITY 

BENEFIT TRUST, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

J & H REINFORCING AND 

STRUCTURAL ERECTORS, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 3:18-CV-00017

JUDGE THOMAS M. ROSE

MAGISTRATE JUDGE SHARON L. 

OVINGTON

MOTION FOR ORDER TO DISBURSE 

FUNDS HELD BY THIS COURT

Plaintiffs hereby respectfully request an Order from this Court directing the Clerk’s Office

to disburse certain monies garnished in this matter, other than personal earnings, pursuant to 

O.R.C. 2716.13. On February 26, 2018, Plaintiffs initiated a garnishment in the above-captioned 

matter. Garnishee, U.S. Bank, answered on July 20, 2018. The total garnished and deposited with 

the Clerk’s office was $24,872.09. After the Plaintiffs initiated the garnishment action in this 

matter, but prior to the Answer of Garnishee U.S. Bank, Defendants made certain payments to the 

Plaintiffs totaling $10,832.48. As a result of such payments made by the Defendants, the Judgment 

remains unsatisfied in the amount of $14,039.61. 

Plaintiffs hereby move that $14,039.61 be disbursed by this Court, minus any poundage 

and costs to this Court, to the Judgment Creditors’ counsel:

Faulkner, Hoffman & Phillips, LLC

c/o Joseph C. Hoffman, Jr., Esq.

20445 Emerald Parkway Drive, Suite 210

Cleveland, OH 44135

Case: 3:18-cv-00017-TMR-SLO Doc #: 24 Filed: 08/07/18 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 247
2

A proposed order is attached to this Motion.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ David M. Pixley

Joseph C. Hoffman, Jr., Esq. (Ohio Reg. No. 0056060)

Joseph D. Mando, Esq. (Ohio Reg. No. 0082835)

David M. Pixley, Esq. (Ohio Reg. No. 0083453)

Faulkner, Hoffman & Phillips, LLC

20445 Emerald Parkway Drive, Suite 210

Phone: (216) 781-3600

Fax: (216) 781-8839

Email: hoffman@fhplaw.com

Email: mando@fhplaw.com

Email: pixley@fhplaw.com

Counsel for Plaintiffs

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on August 7, 2018, a copy of the foregoing Motion for Order was filed 

electronically using the Court’s CM/ECF system. Notice of this filing and the supporting 

documents, will be sent to all parties by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system. A copy 

of this filing has also been sent by first class mail to the following:

J&H Reinforcing and Structural Erectors, Inc.

1506 Tenth Street, P.O. Box 60

Portsmouth, OH 45662

Donald A. Hadsell

1506 Tenth Street, P.O. Box 60

Portsmouth, OH 45662

Defendants

/s/ David M. Pixley

David M. Pixley, Esq. (0083453)

Case: 3:18-cv-00017-TMR-SLO Doc #: 24 Filed: 08/07/18 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 248
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 493 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 493

To authorize testimony, documents, and representation in United States 
                            v. Stahlnecker.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            February 5, 2020

 Mr. McConnell (for himself and Mr. Schumer), submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
To authorize testimony, documents, and representation in United States 
                            v. Stahlnecker.

Whereas, in the case of United States v. Stahlnecker, Cr. No. 19-394, pending in 
        the United States District Court for the Central District of California, 
        the prosecution has requested the production of testimony, and, if 
        necessary, documents from Sarah Harms, an employee of the office of 
        Senator Sherrod Brown, Leah Uhrig, a former employee of that office, 
        and, Kylie Rutherford, an employee of the office of Senator Shelley 
        Moore Capito;
Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 704(a)(2) of the Ethics in Government 
        Act of 1978, 2 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 288b(a) and 288c(a)(2), the Senate may 
        direct its counsel to represent current and former employees of the 
        Senate with respect to any subpoena, order, or request for testimony 
        relating to their official responsibilities;
Whereas, by the privileges of the Senate of the United States and Rule XI of the 
        Standing Rules of the Senate, no evidence under the control or in the 
        possession of the Senate may, by the judicial or administrative process, 
        be taken from such control or possession but by permission of the 
        Senate; and
Whereas, when it appears that evidence under the control or in the possession of 
        the Senate may promote the administration of justice, the Senate will 
        take such action as will promote the ends of justice consistent with the 
        privileges of the Senate: Now, therefore be it
    Resolved, That Sarah Harms and Leah Uhrig, current and former 
employees, respectively, of Senator Brown's office, and Kylie 
Rutherford, a current employee of Senator Capito's office, and any 
other current or former employee of the Senators' offices from whom 
relevant evidence may be necessary, are authorized to testify and 
produce documents in the case of United States v. Stahlnecker, except 
concerning matters for which a privilege should be asserted.
    Sec. 2.  The Senate Legal Counsel is authorized to represent any 
current or former employees of Senators Brown and Capito in connection 
with the production of evidence authorized in section one of this 
resolution.
                                 <all>
```
From: Glenn Wicks

To: Finamore, Robert (OST); Gretch, Paul (OST); Hedberg, Brian (OST)

Cc: ekagrimes@wicks-group.com; Treskunov Yevgen; "Antonyuk Denis"; on@ukrembceo.com

Subject: UIA Authority for Scheduled Service

Date: Wednesday, November 13, 2013 5:46:11 PM

Bob,

Following our discussion today, I am confirming that UIA is looking to receive New York – Kiev

authority, without intermediate or beyond rights at this time, as per the current designation.

I understand from Paul Gretch, that if UIA wishes to obtain intermediate or beyond authority as per

the pre-existing bilateral agreement, it can do so by first proving an amended designation and then

requesting additional authority from DOT at that time. I further understand that DOT does not

object to granting authority stipulated in the pre-existing bilateral agreement, provided that it is

stated explicitly in a designation note.

Many thanks and we look forward to receiving an Exemption and Order to Show Cause shortly.

Glenn

Glenn P. Wicks

The Wicks Group, PLLC

733 10th Street, NW, Suite 3002

Washington, DC 20001

Tel 202.457.7790

Fax 202.457.7799

Mob. 240.643.0504

gpwicks@wicks-group.com

This electronic message transmission contains information from this law firm which may be

confidential or privileged. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual or entity

named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying,

distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you have received this

electronic transmission in error, please notify us immediately.
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 Commerce

###### Bureau of Industry and Security

The Sensors and Instrumentation Technical Advisory Committee (SITAC) will meet on January 25, 2022, at 1:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, via teleconference. The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration on technical questions that affect the level of export controls applicable to sensors and instrumentation equipment and technology.

## Agenda

### Public Session

1. Welcome and Introductions.

2. Remarks from the Bureau of Industry and Security Management.

3. Industry Presentations.

4. New Business.

                    The open session will be accessible via teleconference on a first come, first serve basis. To join the conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Yvette Springer at                     *Yvette.Springer@bis.doc.gov*                     no later than January 18, 2022.                

To the extent that time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. The public may submit written statements at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate distribution of public presentation materials to the Committee members, the Committee suggests that the materials be forwarded before the meeting to Ms. Springer.

For more information contact Yvette Springer on (202) 482-2813.

Yvette Springer,

Committee Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 2022-00764 Filed 1-14-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-JT-P
<PAGE>   1

Exhibit 11. 1 - Computation of Per Share Earnings


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                  For the Year Ended June 30,
                                                       -------------------------------------------------


                                                          1999                1998                1997
                                                       ----------         ----------          ----------
<S>                                                    <C>                <C>                 <C>
Basic earnings per common share
   Net income for calculating basic earnings
   per common share ........................           $6,279,000         $7,236,000          $7,542,000
                                                       ==========         ==========          ==========

   Average common shares outstanding .......            5,502,000          4,654,000           4,187,000
                                                       ----------         ----------          ----------

   Basic earnings per common share .........           $     1.14         $     1.55          $     1.80
                                                       ==========         ==========          ==========

Diluted earnings per common share
   Net income for calculating basic earnings
   per common share ........................           $6,279,000         $7,236,000          $7,542,000
                                                       ==========         ==========          ==========

   Average common shares outstanding .......            5,502,000          4,654,000           4,187,000

   Add exercise of options and warrants ....                   --            142,000                  --
                                                       ----------         ----------          ----------

   Diluted common shares outstanding .......            5,502,000          4,796,000           4,187,000
                                                       ==========         ==========          ==========

   Diluted earnings per common share ......            $     1.14              1.51          $     1.80
                                                       ==========         ==========          ==========
</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1



STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

OF PREMIERE GLOBAL SERVICES, INC.

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

§ 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly
Report of Premiere Global Services, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Boland T. Jones,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Boland T. JonesBoland T. JonesChief Executive OfficerPremiere Global Services, Inc.August 9, 2005
Case: 1:18-cr-00043-TSB Doc #: 209-6 Filed: 11/08/22 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 5302
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON 

CLAUDIA FLUHART, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL 

SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 

Defendant. 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Case No. 3:18-cv-141 

Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington 

(by full consent of the parties) 

DECISION AND ENTRY 

This case is before the Court on the parties’ Joint Motion for an Award of 

Attorney Fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. (Doc. 

#15). Specifically, the parties stipulate to an award to Plaintiff of attorney fees in the 

total amount of $3,200.00, and no costs, in full satisfaction and settlement of any and 

all claims Plaintiff may have under the EAJA in the above case. Prior to Plaintiff 

filing an EAJA petition, the parties jointly reached a resolution to settle EAJA fees in 

this case. Their stipulation represents a compromise on disputed positions and is not 

intended to set precedent for, or a representation of, any specific hourly rate or total 

number of hours. 

The award of attorney fees will satisfy all of Plaintiff’s claims for fees, costs, and 

expenses under 28 U.S.C. § 2412 in this case. Any fees paid belong to Plaintiff and 

can be offset to satisfy pre-existing debt that Plaintiff owes the United States pursuant 

Case: 3:18-cv-00141-SLO Doc #: 16 Filed: 05/05/20 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 1587
2

to Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (2010). 

After the Court enters this award, if counsel for the parties can verify that 

Plaintiff owes no pre-existing debt subject to offset, Defendant agrees to direct that the 

award be made payable to Plaintiff’s attorney pursuant to the EAJA assignment duly 

signed by Plaintiff. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT: 

1. The Parties’ Joint Motion for an Award of Attorney Fees under 

the Equal Access to Justice Act (Doc. #15) is accepted and 

Defendant shall pay Plaintiff’s attorney fees, costs, and 

expenses in the total amount of $3,200.00; 

2. Counsel for the parties shall verify, within thirty days of this 

Decision and Entry, whether or not Plaintiff owes a preexisting debt to the United States subject to offset. If no such 

pre-existing debt exists, Defendant shall pay the EAJA award 

directly to Plaintiff’s counsel pursuant to the EAJA assignment

signed by Plaintiff; and 

3. The case remains terminated on the docket of this Court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Date: May 5, 2020 s/Sharon L. Ovington 

 Sharon L. Ovington

 United States Magistrate Judge 

Case: 3:18-cv-00141-SLO Doc #: 16 Filed: 05/05/20 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 1588
EX-10.11



 Exhibit 10.11 

Amendment No. 4 

This Amendment No. 4 (the “Amendment”) to the Igloo Holdings Corporation 2010 Stock Incentive Plan, as amended (the
“Plan”), is made effective as of this 23rd day of September 2014. 

WHEREAS, Igloo Holdings Corporation (the “Company”) maintains the Plan; and 

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 17 of the Plan, the Plan may be amended by the Company’s Board of Directors (the
“Board”); and 
 WHEREAS, the Board believes it to be in the best interests of the Company to amend the Plan to increase
the number of shares that may be issued to participants in the Plan in connection with awards granted thereunder. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, the
Plan is hereby amended by striking the number “160,396,876” from the first sentence of Section 4(a) of the Plan and replacing it with the number “163,396,876”. 

Except as modified by this Amendment, all of the terms and conditions of the Plan shall remain valid and in full force and effect. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of the Company, has executed this instrument as of the 23rd day of September 2014, on behalf of the Board. 
  

			
	IGLOO HOLDINGS CORPORATION
		
	By:	 	 /s/ VINCENT A. CHIPPARI

	Name:	 	Vincent A. Chippari
	Title:	 	Treasurer and Co-Secretary
#### The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v Vito Valenti and Joseph Saia, Defendants.

Criminal Court of the City of New York, Kings County,

April 26, 1988

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Anthony Barratta*for Vito Valenti, defendant. *Caesar D. Cirigliano*and *Wayne Boden*for Joseph Saia, defendant. *Elizabeth Holtzman, District Attorney (Jay Kenigsberg*of counsel), for plaintiff.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Joseph Silverman, J.

The defendants move this court for orders dismissing the information herein on the grounds that the People were not "ready” pursuant to the statutory period of time required by CPL 30.30.

The People assert that 41 days of the time alleged by the defense to be chargeable to the People are excludable because the case was adjourned for them to provide open file discovery to the defense.

The defendants were arraigned on October 5, 1987 on a complaint charging them with the crimes of assault in the third degree, aggravated harassment in the second degree (two counts), menacing (two counts) and Civil Rights Law § 40-c (two counts).

*255The complaint was based upon information from two complaining witnesses. At the time of arraignment, there was a supporting deposition from only one informant. The case was adjourned to October 20, 1987 for the filing of the second supporting deposition. On that date the second supporting affidavit was not filed and the presiding Judge directed the People to turn over to the defense, open file discovery by November 30, 1987. On that adjourned date, the People again did not have the supporting deposition and the case was adjourned to January 15, 1988. On January 15, 1988 the People dismissed those counts in the complaint involving the informant whose deposition was not filed and answered "ready” for trial. This statement of readiness occurred 102 days after the arraignment.

The People contend that the period from October 20 to November 30 should not be included because the adjournment was for open file discovery, a practice akin to motion practice. The endorsements on the court file indicate that the People were charged with includable time for the October 20 adjournment. Furthermore, as evidenced from a review of the minutes of the proceedings for that date, defense counsel neither requested nor consented to the adjournment.

The minutes indicate that the court *sua sponte*ordered open file discovery for the next date and charged the People with the adjournment.

This court does not impute to the defendants any waiver of their rights on October 20 to be prosecuted by an information by not objecting to the court’s direction to the People to turn over open file discovery.

The court finds that the People were not ready within 90 days of arraignment and therefore the defendants’ motions to dismiss are granted.
**Exhibit 21.1****Subsidiaries of the Registrant**     Wholly-owned subsidiaries of Premier Exhibitions, Inc. as of February 29, 2008:   **Name** **Jurisdiction of Organization**R.M.S. Titanic, Inc. FloridaSeatron Limited United KingdomR.M.S. Titanic (United Kingdom) Ltd. United KingdomPremier Exhibitions (UK) Ltd. United KingdomPremier Acquisitions, Inc. NevadaExhibitions International, LLC. NevadaPremier Exhibitions 2005A-SP, Inc. NevadaPremier Exhibitions 2005B-ATL, Inc. NevadaPremier Exhibitions NYC, Inc. NevadaPremier Exhibitions No. 5, Inc. NevadaPremier Exhibitions No. 6, Inc. NevadaPremier Exhibitions No. 7, Inc. NevadaPremier Exhibitions No. 8, Inc. NevadaPremier Acquisitions II NevadaPremier Merchandising, LLC DelawarePremier Sports Exhibitions, LLC DelawarePremier Vision, LLC Delaware