alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.2 Compensation Agreement dated February 25, 2019 between Oroplata Resources, Inc. and John C. Lukrich


 

Exhibit 10.2

 

COMPENSATION AGREEMENT

 

This Compensation Agreement is made to be effective from February 25, 2019 by and between John C. Lukrich (“Consultant”) and Oroplata Resources, Inc. (the “Company") (together, Consultant and the Company are each a "Party" and collectively, the "Parties"), who agree as follows:

 

1.Compensation. In compensation for management services rendered to the Company for the calendar year ending December 31, 2019, the Company agrees to issue Consultant the sum of one million (1,000,000) shares of the Company’s common stock (the “Compensation Shares”). 

 

2.Registration. As soon as reasonably practicable after the full execution of this Agreement, the Company intends to file a Registration Statements on Form S-8 with the Securities and Exchange Commission registering the Compensation Shares to permit the public sale by the Consultant. 

 

3.Restricted Services. The Parties agree that none of the services previously provided or to be provided in exchange for the Compensation Shares are in connection with any capital raising transaction or with directly or indirectly promoting or maintaining a market for the securities of the Company. To the extent that Consultant has or will provide any of such services, he shall be compensated from other sources other than the Compensation Shares.  

 

4.Board Approval. This Agreement was approved by the Board of Consultants of Oroplata Resources, Inc., on February 25, 2019 

 

5.Governing Law; Venue. This Agreement shall be constructed and interpreted in accordance with and governed by the laws of the State of Nevada. The parties agree to submit to the jurisdiction of the Federal and State Courts in Washoe County, Nevada for the resolution of all legal disputes arising under the terms of this Agreement. 

 

6.Severability. Should any provision of this Agreement be declared or determined to be invalid or illegal, the validity of the remaining parts, terms or provisions shall not be affected thereby, and the illegal or invalid part, term or provision shall be deemed not to be a part of this Agreement. 

 

7.Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Compensation Agreement to be duly executed by each Party’s authorized officer as of the Effective Date.

 

	“COMPANY”

	“CONSULTANT”:


	Oroplata Resources, Inc.,

a Nevada corporation

 

By:  /s/ Douglas Cole 

Name:Douglas Cole 

Title:Chief Executive Officer 

	 

 

 

By: s/ John C. Lukrich 

Name: John C. Lukrich
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           2,769
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   28,756
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                54,022
<PP&E>                                         148,791 
<DEPRECIATION>                                  82,406 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 143,838 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           61,504 
<BONDS>                                          2,517 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0 
<PREFERRED>                                          0 
<COMMON>                                           209 
<OTHER-SE>                                      75,705 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   143,838 
<SALES>                                         99,386 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                99,386 
<CGS>                                           38,440        
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   75,371  
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   783  
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0  
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0  
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 23,232  
<INCOME-TAX>                                     9,351  
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             13,881  
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0  
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0  
<CHANGES>                                            0  
<NET-INCOME>                                    13,881  
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .73  
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .73  
        

</TABLE>
EX PARTE Edward Ray DILLARD

CR-16-0454

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

April 3, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Habeas corpus pet. denied.
#### Abdul RAHMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kenneth CHENAULT, Trustee CEO and Chairman, American Express, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-1662

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 27, 2017

Decided: July 31, 2017

Abdul Rahman, Appellant Pro Se.

Before AGEE and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Abdul Rahman appeals the district court’s order dismissing Rahman’s “Bill in Equity.” We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we. affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Rahman v. Chenault,*No. 1:17-mc-00013-LMB-IDD (E.D. Va. May 16, 2017). 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*
Alberto RODAS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D17-145

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed November 29, 2017.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<PAGE>   1

            REVIEW REPORT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS



To Catalina Marketing Corporation:

We have reviewed the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet of
Catalina Marketing Corporation (a Delaware corporation) as of December 31, 1998,
and the related condensed consolidated statements of income for the three-month
and nine-month periods ended December 31, 1998 and 1997, and the condensed
consolidated statements of cash flow for the nine-month periods ended December
31, 1998 and 1997. These financial statements are the responsibility of the
Company's management.

We conducted our review in accordance with standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants. A review of interim financial
information consists principally of applying analytical procedures to financial
data and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial and accounting
matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in accordance
with generally accepted auditing standards, the objective of which is the
expression of an opinion regarding the financial statements taken as a whole.
Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.

Based on our review, we are not aware of any material modifications that should
be made to the financial statements referred to above, for them to be in
conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.

We have previously audited, in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards, the consolidated balance sheet of Catalina Marketing Corporation as
of March 31, 1998, and the related consolidated statements of income,
stockholders' equity and cash flows for the year then ended (not presented
separately herein), and, in our report dated April 23, 1998, we expressed an
unqualified opinion on those financial statements. In our opinion, the
information set forth in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet
as of March 31, 1998, is fairly stated, in all material respects, in relation to
the consolidated balance sheet from which it has been derived.


                            /s/ ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP



Tampa, Florida,
     January 12, 1999
R. J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO CO., Appellant, v. James C. MC CABE, as Personal Representative FOR the ESTATE OF Dorothy J. MC CABE, deceased, et al., Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-797

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 18, 2018

Charles R. A. Morse of Jones Day, New York; Troy A. Fuhrman and Marie Attaway Borland of Hill Ward Henderson, Tampa; and Jason T. Burnette of Jones Day, Atlanta, for Appellant.

George A. Vaka and Richard N. Asfar of Vaka Law Group, P.L., Tampa; Hendrik Uiterwyk, Anna Frederiksen-Cherry, Paul E. Berg, and Andrew Bennett of Abrahamson & Uiterwyk, Tampa; Gary Paige of Gordon & Doner, P.A., Davie; and Michael J. Trentalange of Trentalange & Kelley, P.A., Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

KELLY, KHOUZAM, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
Noel Norberto NINO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-2823

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed January 23, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
#### UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jaime Jacquez MORAN Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-2962

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: March 27, 2017

Filed: March 30, 2017

Clifford R. Cronk, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Davenport, IA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Jaime Jacquez Moran, Pro Se

Patrick William O’Bryan, O’Bryan Law Firm, Des Moines, IA, for Defendant-Appellant

Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

After Jaime Moran pleaded guilty to a marijuana conspiracy offense, the district court1 sentenced him to 144 months in prison, in accordance with the parties’ joint sentencing stipulation and recommendation. On appeal, newly appointed counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). For the reasons explained below, we affirm.

Counsel argues that Moran’s guilty plea is not voluntary, because trial counsel failed to challenge the credibility of the government’s informant and to suppress the informant’s incriminating statements. Counsel also argues that trial counsel was ineffective for entering into the joint stipulation and recommendation for a 144-month sentence. Neither of these arguments is properly before us. First, Moran did not seek below to withdraw his guilty plea; and second, both of his arguments are based on ineffective assistance of counsel, which we decline to address in this direct criminal appeal. See United States v. Umanzor, 617 F.3d 1053, 1060-61 (8th Cir. 2010) (where defendant did not move to withdraw guilty plea in district court, he could not challenge voluntariness of plea for first time on direct appeal, and any claim that plea was involuntary needed to be addressed in 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceedings where factual record could be further developed); United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 826-27 (8th Cir. 2006) (ineffective-assistance claims are usually best litigated in collateral proceedings; this court will consider such claims on direct appeal only where record is fully developed, where not to act would amount to plain miscarriage of justice, or where counsel’s error is readily apparent).

Finally, having reviewed the record independently as required under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no nonfrivo-lous issues for. appeal. The judgment is ■ affirmed.

1

. The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Stephen B. Jackson, Jr., United States Magistrate Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.
Exhibit



Portions of this Exhibit, indicated by the mark “[***]” have been omitted and filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission.  Confidential treatment has been requested with respect to this omitted information.



Exhibit 10.25


THIRD AMENDMENT TO
PRIVATE LABEL BANKING PROGRAM AGREEMENT


This THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE PRIVATE LABEL BANKING   PROGRAM
AGREEMENT, dated as of December 21, 2017 (the “Third Amendment Effective Date”), is by and between T-MOBILE USA, INC., a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Delaware, with offices located at 12920 SE 38th Street, Bellevue, Washington 98006-1250 (“Company”), and CUSTOMERS BANK, a Pennsylvania state-chartered banking institution with a mailing address of 99 Bridge Street, Phoenixville, Pennsylvania 19460 (“Bank”), and amends the Agreement (as defined below) (this “Third Amendment”).  Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the Agreement.


RECITALS


WHEREAS, Bank and Company entered into that certain Private Label Banking Program Agreement, effective as of February 24, 2017 (the “Agreement”); ; and


WHEREAS, Bank and Company desire to enter into this Third Amendment to amend certain terms and conditions of the Agreement as set forth below.


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises, covenants, and agreements herein, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereby agree as follows:


		
	1.
	AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 9.2 OF THE AGREEMENT




(a)    In connection with [***] in the final implementation of additional features, functionality and support set forth on Exhibit F, Company agrees to pay Bank a fee in the amount of [***] upon invoice in accordance with the Agreement.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement is executed by the Parties’ authorized officers or representatives and shall be effective as of the date first above-written.


	
					
	T-MOBILE USA, INC. (COMPANY)
	 
	CUSTOMERS BANK (CUBI)

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	By:
	/s/ [***]
	 
	By:
	/s/ [***]

	Name:
	[***]
	 
	Name:
	[***]

	Title:
	 
	 
	Title:
	[***]

	Date:
	12/22/2017 | 10:02 PM PST
	 
	Date:
	12/22/2017




    
APPROVED AS TO FORM


/s/ [***]                                
T-MOBILE LEGAL
NOTE : This order is nonprecedential. 

# United States Court of Appeals
**for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

NASSAR GROUP INTERNATIONAL N.G.I. S.A.L. (OFFSHORE) R.C., dba NGI Afghanistan for Contracting,
Appellant

v.

SECRETARY OF THE ARMY,
Appellee

______________________

2023

- 1479

______________________
Appeal from the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in No. 58451, 59465, 59701

, Administrative Judge Richard Shackleford, Administrative Judge James R. Sweet, Administrative Judge J. Reid Prouty.

______________________

O R D E R

The appellant having failed to pay th e docketing fee required by Federal Circuit Rule 52(a)(1) within the time permitted by the rules, it is Case: 23-1479 Document: 7 Page: 1 Filed: 03/09/2023N ASSAR G ROUP I NTERNATIONAL V

. S ECRETARY OF THE A RMY 2

ORDERED that the notice of appeal be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED, for failure to prosecute in

accordance with the rules.

FOR THE COURT

March 9, 2023

Date /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: March 9, 2023 Case: 23-1479 Document: 7 Page: 2 Filed: 03/09/2023
**Exhibit 32**

** **

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

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Zamba Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for thethree months ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Michael H. Carrel, President andChief Executive Officer of the Company, and Michael H. Carrel, Chief FinancialOfficer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

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

 

2)              The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, theundersigned has executed this Certification as of the 15th day of November2004.
|   | /s/ Michael H. Carrel                 |
|--------|---------------------------------------|
|   | Michael H. Carrel                     |
|   | President and Chief Executive Officer |
|   |                                  |
|   | /s/ Michael H. Carrel                 |
|   | Michael H. Carrel                     |
|   | Chief Financial Officer               |

 

----
Willie HOGAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-641

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[April 26, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 97-4503 JOHN THOMAS, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CR-94-6) Submitted: January 27, 1998 Decided: February 12, 1998 Before ERVIN, WILKINS, and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL William Arthur Webb, Federal Public Defender, Gordon Widenhouse, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Janice McKenzie Cole, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________ OPINION PER CURIAM: John Warren Thomas appeals the district court's order sentencing him to twenty-four months' imprisonment for violations of supervised release. In February 1994, Thomas pled guilty to conspiracy to pass counterfeit United States currency and use of an unauthorized access device. He was sentenced to fourteen months' incarceration on each count and thirty-six months of supervised release. In August 1995, Thomas's probation officer filed a motion to revoke his supervised release, citing Thomas's subsequent guilty plea to attempted robbery and his marijuana use. At the revocation hearing, Thomas admitted violating the terms and conditions of his supervised release and requested that he be granted credit for time served for the supervised release violations because he had already served a two-year sentence for the attempted robbery. The district court rejected this request and sentenced Thomas to the statutory maximum of twenty-four months in prison. Thomas now contends that the court declined to grant his request because it erroneously believed it did not have discretion to do so. SeeUSSG § 7B1.3(f).* After a careful review of the record, we find nothing to suggest the court misapprehended its authority with respect to the provision at issue. See United States v. Davis , 53 F.3d 638, 640 (4th Cir. 1995). Accordingly, we affirm Thomas's sentence for the violations of supervised release. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

_________________________________________________________________ *U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 7B1.3(f) (1995).
2
Samuel Matthew MOSLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-2995

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 6, 2018 Rehearing Denied May 23, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 32.2

        CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 906 of the SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Paul H. Schmitt, Chief Financial Officer of M-Wave, Inc. (the "Company"),
certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, that:

(1)      the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly
         period ended September 30, 2003 (the "Report") fully complies with the
         requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
         of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

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

Dated: November 12, 2003                                 /s/ Paul H. Schmitt
                                                         -----------------------
                                                         Paul H. Schmitt
                                                         Chief Financial Officer

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 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
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

                                       65
#### Terrance Jon IRBY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of WASHINGTON; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-35417

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 14, 2017 *

Filed February 28, 2017

Terrance Jon Irby, Pro Se

Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Washington state prisoner Terrance Jon Irby appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s interpretation and application of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), *Washington v. L.A. Cty. Sheriff’s Dep’t,*833 F.3d 1048, 1054 (9th Cir. 2016), and for an abuse of discretion its denial of leave to proceed IFP, *O’Loughlin v. Doe,*920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir. 1990). We vacate and remand.

*611The district court concluded that Irby-had filed three actions that had been dismissed for failure to state claim, and that Irby had not alleged that he was in “imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Intervening authority, however, has held that “a dismissal due to *Younger*abstention ... is not a strike under the [Prison Litigation Reform Act].” *Washington,*833 F.3d at 1058. One of the prior dismissals relied on by the district court, *Irby v. O’Neill,*No. 2:13-cv-00197-JLR (W.D. Wash. Mar. 11, 2013), was a dismissal based on *Younger*abstention. Therefore, the district court improperly counted No. 2:13-cv-00197-JLR as a strike. We vacate the order denying IFP status and remand for further proceedings.

Irby’s request for injunctive relief, set forth in his opening brief, is denied.

VACATED and REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.