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

     

    LICENSE TERMINATION AND
EXTINGUISHING AGREEMENT

     

    This
License Termination and Extinguishing Agreement ("Termination Agreement") is entered into as
of March 31, 2010, by and between New Nycon, Inc. a Delaware corporation with an
address of One Neshaminy Interplex #201 Trevose, PA 19053, a wholly owned
subsidiary of Pure Earth, Inc. ("Licensee") and Paul E. Bracegirdle with an
address of P.O. Box 88 Langhorne, PA 19047 ("Licensor").  Capitalized terms
used herein and not otherwise defined shall have the respective meanings
ascribed to them in that certain License Agreement dated as of 30th day of
April, 2008 by and between Licensor and Licensee ("Exclusive License
Agreement”).

     

    WHEREAS, the Licensor granted
the Licensee the exclusive right and license to use the Technology and Products
pursuant to the License Agreement in accordance with the terms set forth
therein; and

     

    WHEREAS, the Licensor and
Licensee now wish to terminate and extinguish the License Agreement in its
entirety and in accordance with the terms set forth in this Termination
Agreement.

     

    NOW, THEREFORE, in
consideration of the foregoing and of the mutual promises contained herein and
for other valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby
acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:

     

    1.   Termination.
 The Licensor and the Licensee hereby terminate and extinguish the
Exclusive License Agreement effective as of the Termination Date (as defined
below). In furtherance of the foregoing, as of the Termination Date, Licensor
shall terminate and Licensee shall relinquish all of Licensee's rights set forth
in the Exclusive License Agreement, including, without limitation, Licensee's
right to use or sublicense in any manner the Technology, Product, Patents,
Licensed IP or the Trademarks. The Licensee agrees that any rights or
obligations contained within the Exclusive License Agreement shall be of no
further force and effect.

     

    2.   Termination Fee.
 The Licensor and the Licensee hereby agree that neither party shall be due
any Termination Fee or other obligation one-to-the-other
whatsoever.

     

    3.   Effective Date of
Termination.  The termination of the Exclusive License Agreement
provided for in Section 1 herein shall occur and be effective as of the date
first above written.

     

    
      
         


      

      
         


        
          

        

      

      
         


      

    

     

    By New
Nycon, Inc. (Licensee)

     

    
      
        	
                /s/ Brent Kopenhaver

              
	
                [Signature]

              
	 
      
	
                By
      Paul E. Bracegirdle (Licensor)

              
	 
      
	
                /s/ Paul E. Bracegirdle

              
	 
      
	
                By
      Pure Earth, Inc. (Shareholder of Licensee)

              
	 
      
	
                /s/ Brent Kopenhaver

              
	
                [Signature]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           1,007
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           3,035
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     10,859
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         183,323
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           177,584
<LOANS>                                        263,434
<ALLOWANCE>                                      2,038
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 477,743
<DEPOSITS>                                     312,470
<SHORT-TERM>                                    17,431
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              5,481
<LONG-TERM>                                    111,728
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            23
<OTHER-SE>                                      30,610
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 477,743
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 17,395
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                3,847
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 3,348
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                24,590
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              11,074
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              16,734
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            7,857
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  3,978
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,229
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,903
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.28
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.09
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 2,040
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        2
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                2,038
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          2,038


</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 99.1**

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

           I, Steve Humphreys, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of ActivCard S.A. on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2003 fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operationsof ActivCard S.A. 

|   | Date: May 14, 2003                                                            | /s/ STEVE HUMPHREYS |   |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------|--------|
|   |                                                                                    |                     |
|   | **Steve Humphreys Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer** |                     |

          A signed original of this written statement required bysection 906 has been provided to ActivCard S.A. and will be retained by ActivCard S.A. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission upon request.
#### In Re: Petition of Committee on Professional Ethics of the Arkansas Bar Association for the Establishment of Trustee Proceedings

81-100

621 S.W. 2d 623

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Opinion delivered September 21, 1981

*P. K. Holmes, III,*and *B. Frank Mackey, Jr.*for petitioner.

Per Curiam.

The Committee on Professional Ethics of the Arkansas Bar Association has petitioned this Court to order, by rule, that the probate judge shall have the jurisdiction to appoint a trustee for a lawyer who is disabled, is deceased or has disappeared. Under the proposal the trustee would make an inventory of the attorney’s files and bank accounts and would then prepare an accounting. The trustee would be authorized to refer the attorney’s files to another attorney or to the client. No mention is made of the disposition of funds accounted for by the trustee. The probate judge would then discharge the trustee from further responsibilities. We decline to order the proposal into effect.

*497We are asked to confer the jurisdiction on the probate court by rule. Yet, the probate court is a court of special and limited jurisdiction, having only such jurisdiction and powers as are conferred by the constitution or by statute, or are necessarily incident to the exercise of the jurisdiction and powers granted. *Hilburn*v. *First State Bank,*259 Ark. 569, 535 S.W. 2d 810 (1976). The authority and jurisdiction of probate courts are to be strictly construed. *Poe*v. *Case,*263 Ark. 488, 565 S.W. 2d 612 (1978). The proposal deals with substantive law, not procedural law. Courts are reluctant to make substantive law by rule, especially in areas where there is, or might be, a conflict with some act of the General Assembly. Clearly this proposal would conflict with the statutory scheme for establishing a guardianship in the event of an incompetent attorney. Ark. Stat. Ann. Title 57, Chapter 6. The proposal for deceased attorneys would conflict with the statutory scheme for decedents’ estates. Ark. Stat. Ann. Title 57, Chapter 6. There are no probate statutes conflicting with the proposal for attorneys who have disappeared, but there are express conflicting statutes, Ark. Stat. Ann. § 58-201, 202 and 203, that provide chancery court shall have jurisdiction of the estates of missing persons.

It is doubtful that we could fashion any type of rule that would authorize the probate court to administer trusts. Since 1842 our cases have been clear that the establishment, management and execution of a trust are in chancery court. *Ex Parte Conway,*4 Ark. 302 (1842).
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4576 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4576

   To require a study and report on the feasibility and potential of 
establishing a deep water sea port in the Arctic to protect and advance 
  strategic United States interests within the evolving and ever more 
                           important region.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 2, 2010

 Mr. Young of Alaska introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                   to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To require a study and report on the feasibility and potential of 
establishing a deep water sea port in the Arctic to protect and advance 
  strategic United States interests within the evolving and ever more 
                           important region.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Arctic Deep Water Sea Port Act of 
2010''.

SEC. 2. REPORT ON ESTABLISHMENT OF ARCTIC DEEP WATER PORT.

    (a) Study.--
            (1) In general.--The Secretary of Defense, in consultation 
        with the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall conduct a study 
        on the feasibility and potential of establishing a deep water 
        sea port in the Arctic to protect and advance strategic United 
        States interests within the evolving and ever more important 
        Arctic region.
            (2) Scope.--The study required under paragraph (1) shall 
        address the following issues:
                    (A) The capability that such a port would provide.
                    (B) Potential and optimum locations for such a 
                port.
                    (C) Resources needed to establish such a port.
                    (D) The time frame needed to establish such a port.
                    (E) The infrastructure required to support such a 
                port, including Command, Control, Communications, 
                Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance and 
                Reconnaissance (C4ISR) facilities, health care 
                facilities, barracks and housing, airfield and pier 
                support, and operations facilities.
                    (F) Any other issues the Secretary determines 
                necessary to complete the study.
    (b) Report.--Not later than two years after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the 
Committees on Armed Services and Appropriations of the Senate and the 
House of Representatives a report on the findings of the study 
conducted under subsection (a).
                                 <all>
```
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

THE TURFGRASS GROUP, INC., AND UNIVERSITY 

OF GEORGIA RESEARCH FOUNDATION, INC.,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

CAROLINA FRESH FARMS, INC., CAROLINA 

FRESH FARMS, L.L.C., FKA CAROLINA FRESH 

FARMS, INC., AND JOHN A. FOGLE, SR.,

Defendants-Appellees.

______________________ 

2014-1017

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

District of South Carolina in No. 5:10-cv-00849-JMC, 

Judge J. Michelle Childs.

______________________ 

ON MOTION

______________________ 

O R D E R

The appellants move for leave to file their appendix 

out of time and to reinstate their appeal.

Case: 14-1017 Document: 44 Page: 1 Filed: 08/06/2014
2 THE TURFGRASS GROUP, INC. v. CAROLINA FRESH FARMS, INC. 

On August 4, 2014, this appeal was dismissed for failure to timely file the appendix. The court notes that the 

appendix was submitted with the motion to reinstate. 

Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

(1) The motion to accept the appendix out of time is 

granted. The joint appendix is accepted for filing.

(2) The mandate is recalled, the court’s August 4, 

2014 dismissal order is vacated, and the appeal is reinstated.

(3) This appeal will be placed on the oral argument 

calendar in due course.

 FOR THE COURT

 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole 

Daniel E. O’Toole 

Clerk of Court

s21

Case: 14-1017 Document: 44 Page: 2 Filed: 08/06/2014
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4484 

To preclude individuals who have a pending charge or have been convicted 

of a crime from serving as enumerators for the collection of census data. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 21, 2010 

Mr. CHAFFETZ introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To preclude individuals who have a pending charge or have 

been convicted of a crime from serving as enumerators 

for the collection of census data. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PRECLUSION OF CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS FROM 

4 SERVING AS ENUMERATORS. 

5 Section 25 of title 13, United States Code, is amend6 ed by adding at the end the following: 

7 ‘‘(c) An individual who has a pending charge for a 

8 crime, or has been convicted of a crime in any court may 

9 not serve as an enumerator under this section. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4484 IH

1 ‘‘(d) For the purposes of this section, the term crime 

2 means any criminal offense other than a minor traffic of3 fense.’’. 

4 SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

5 The amendment made by this Act shall take effect 

6 on the date of enactment of this Act, but shall not apply 

7 in the case of any individual who, as of such date of enact8 ment, holds an enumerator position (whether by appoint9 ment, assignment, promotion, detail, or other personnel 

10 action). 

Æ 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
#### In the matter of George Tyson.

*Breach of promise to marry: Fraud: Imprisonment for debt A*cause of action based simply upon a breach of promise to marry, without any charge involving fraud, is within the constitutional inhibition *(Art.*VI., § *33)*against imprisonment for debt.

*Heard and decided June 15.*

Application for *Habeas Corpus*and *Certiorari.*

Tyson was arrested on a *capias*in a civil action, issued upon an affidavit charging him simply with a breach of a promise to marry. An order to hold to bail was indorsed *263031 the *capias.*He gaye bail 'and was released, but was afterwards surrendered in exoneration of bis bail, and at the time of making this application was in custody of the sheriff by virtue of such *capias.*The respondent was heard on the merits upon the motion for the writ.

*W. G. Howard,*for petitioner.

*Arthur Brotan,*for respondent, argued that this arrest was warranted by *People v. McAllister, 19 Mich., 215,*and *Matter of Sheahan, 25 Mich., 145.*

The Couet

held that this case is distinguishable from those cited; that a cause of action based simply upon a breach of promise to marry, in the absence of any charge inyolying fraud, is within the constitutional inhibition against imprisonment for *debt.*— Art. *VI.,*§ *33.*

Prisoner discharged.
Case: 3:17-mj-00409-SLO Doc #: 3 Filed: 12/10/18 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 23
Case: 3:17-mj-00409-SLO Doc #: 3 Filed: 12/10/18 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 24
**Exhibit
        32.1**
  
  **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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Data Systems & Software
        Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2005 as filed
        with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
        I, George Morgenstern, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify,
        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 result of operations of the
                  Company.
  **/s/** George
        Morgenstern
 George
        Morgenstern
 Chief
        Executive Officer
 November
        17, 2005
Case: 2:17-cv-00998-EAS-EPD Doc #: 179 Filed: 03/02/20 Page: 1 of 5  PAGEID #: 6863

Case: 2:17-cv-00998-EAS-EPD Doc #: 179 Filed: 03/02/20 Page: 2 of 5  PAGEID #: 6864

Case: 2:17-cv-00998-EAS-EPD Doc #: 179 Filed: 03/02/20 Page: 3 of 5  PAGEID #: 6865

Case: 2:17-cv-00998-EAS-EPD Doc #: 179 Filed: 03/02/20 Page: 4 of 5  PAGEID #: 6866

Case: 2:17-cv-00998-EAS-EPD Doc #: 179 Filed: 03/02/20 Page: 5 of 5  PAGEID #: 6867
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

MARIE DICOWDEN,

Plaintiff,
v. . Case No. 3:18-cv-148
PNC BANK, NATIONAL ; JUDGE WALTER H. RICE
ASSOCIATION,
Defendant.

ORDER VACATING SEPTEMBER 9, 2019, TRIAL DATE

Trial in the above-captioned case is currently set for September 9, 2019.
United States Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington conducted a mediation on May
23, 2019. The docket indicates that the parties have reached a tentative
settlement, but are awaiting bank approval. Magistrate Judge Ovington has a
follow-up conference call scheduled for September 16, 2019.

In light of the foregoing, the Court VACATES the September 9, 2019, trial
date. In the event the parties are unable to settle this matter, the Court will issue

a new scheduling order.

Date: August 28, 2019 Uw nh
WALTER H. RICE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case: 3:17-cr-00174-TMR Doc #: 28 Filed: 12/14/17 Page: 1 of 7 PAGEID #: 141
Case: 3:17-cr-00174-TMR Doc #: 28 Filed: 12/14/17 Page: 2 of 7 PAGEID #: 142
Case: 3:17-cr-00174-TMR Doc #: 28 Filed: 12/14/17 Page: 3 of 7 PAGEID #: 143
Case: 3:17-cr-00174-TMR Doc #: 28 Filed: 12/14/17 Page: 4 of 7 PAGEID #: 144
Case: 3:17-cr-00174-TMR Doc #: 28 Filed: 12/14/17 Page: 5 of 7 PAGEID #: 145
Case: 3:17-cr-00174-TMR Doc #: 28 Filed: 12/14/17 Page: 6 of 7 PAGEID #: 146
Case: 3:17-cr-00174-TMR Doc #: 28 Filed: 12/14/17 Page: 7 of 7 PAGEID #: 147
1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION

Maurice Lee Soledad, R., 

Plaintiff, 

v. Case No. 1:18cv126 

Lt. Webb, et al., Judge Michael R. Barrett 

Defendants. 

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation filed by the 

Magistrate Judge on May 1, 2018 (Doc. 5). 

Proper notice has been given to the parties under 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(C), including 

notice that the parties would waive further appeal if they failed to file objections to the Report 

and Recommendation in a timely manner. United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 

1981). No objections to the Magistrate Judge=s Report and Recommendation have been filed. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 5) of the 

Magistrate Judge is hereby ADOPTED. Consistent with the recommendation by the 

Magistrate Judge, the Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)(1), with the exception of Plaintiff’s excessive force claims 

against defendants Moore and Fryer. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 s/Michael R. Barrett 

Michael R. Barrett 

United States District Judge
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION
JACOB DILLINGHAM on behalf of Case No. 1:18-cv-70
himself and all others similarly situated, Barrett, J.
Plaintiff, Litkovitz, M.J.
vs.
MAUSER USA, LLC, ORDER
Defendant.

This matter is before the Court on plaintiff's motion to stay discovery (Doc. 35), which
defendant indicates it does not oppose (Doc. 37).

Plaintiff moves for a stay of discovery pending the Court’s resolution of plaintiff's
motion to dismiss without prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2) and defendant’s response in
opposition thereto, which specifically requests that dismissal be with prejudice. (See Docs. 33,
36). Plaintiff maintains that a stay of discovery is “[i]n the interest of the Parties not incurring
unneeded costs, expenses, and time spent on these matters.” (Doc. 35 at 1).

For good cause shown, plaintiff's motion (Doc. 35) is GRANTED. Discovery is
STAYED pending further order of the Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: ~//RE/VE Zlpsin A ethanil

Karen L. Litkovitz
United States Magistrate Judge