alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
FLK 8K


Exhibit 10.6




Sale of Goods Agreement

Agreement made on July 24, 2017, between Folkup Development Inc., of Mileve Maric Ajnstajn 72, Novi Beograd, Republic of Serbia 11070, in this agreement referred to as Seller, and Digital Srbija Ltd of Gospodara Vucica 176/1, Beograd, Republic of Serbia 011000, in this agreement referred to as Buyer.

1. SALE OF GOODS 



Seller shall sell to Buyer on or before July 24, 2017, the following goods:




					
	No.

	DESCRIPTION

	QUANTITY (SET)

	UNIT PRICE (USD)

	TOTAL PRICE (USD)


	1

	IconBIT Smart Scooter SD-0012K Kit Black

	40

	267.5

	10,700.00


	 

	TOTAL:

	40

	 

	10,700.00 







The transportation cost shall be at the expense of Buyer.



2. CONSIDERATION 

The full price for the goods is $10,700 (Ten thousand and seven hundred) US Dollars. Buyer shall accept the goods and pay $4,100 (Four thousand and one hundred) US Dollars as prepayment. The remaining amount in consideration of $6,600 (Six thousand and six hundred) US Dollars shall be paid not later than August 24, 2017. 

3. IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS 

Identification of the goods to this agreement shall not be deemed to have been made until both buyer and seller have specified that the goods in question are to be appropriated to the performance of this agreement.  

4. PAYMENT ON RECEIPT

Buyer shall make payment for the goods at the time when, and at the place where, the goods are received by Buyer.

5. WARRANTY OF NO ENCUMBRANCES 

Seller warrants that the goods are now free, and that at the time of delivery shall be free from any security interest or other lien or encumbrance.

6. WARRANTY OF TITLE 

Furthermore, seller warrants that at the time of signing this agreement, seller neither knows nor has reason to know of the existence of any outstanding title or claim of title hostile to the rights of seller in the goods.

7. RIGHT OF INSPECTION 

Buyer shall have the right to inspect the goods on arrival and, within 10 business days after delivery, buyer must give notice to seller of any claim for damages on account of condition, quality or grade of the goods, and buyer must specify the basis of the claim of buyer in detail. The failure of buyer to comply with these conditions shall constitute irrevocable acceptance of the goods by buyer.

In witness whereof, the parties have executed this agreement at Belgrade, Republic of Serbia the day and year first above written.

		
	Seller




/s/ Milena Topolac Tomovic

Milena Topolac Tomovic, President

	Buyer




/s/ Imran Mureed

Imran Mureed, Director












1
EX PARTE Darryl J. DIXON

1151081 (CR-14-1078)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

February 10, 2017

Cert. denied.
**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 accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of M~Wave,
      Inc.
      for the three months ended September 30, 2007, I, Jim Mayer, Interim Chief
      Executive Officer of M~Wave, Inc. do hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
      of
      2002, that:





(1)
      such
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the three months ended September 30, 2007,
      fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)
      the
      information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the three
      months ended September 30, 2007, fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the
      financial condition and results of operations of M~Wave, Inc.







Dated:  November
                14, 2007
            /s/
                Jim MayerJim
                MayerInterim
                Chief Executive Officer
Maximiliano REY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D17-2706

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed May 16, 2018 Rehearing Denied June 25, 2018

Maximiliano Rey, in proper person.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Jonathan Tanoos, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before LOGUE, SCALES, and LINDSEY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

*545Maximiliano Rey appeals from an order denying his motion for clarification of jail credit. We affirm without prejudice for Rey to first exhaust his administrative remedies with the Department of Corrections and, if unsatisfied with the outcome, to file a petition for writ of mandamus against the Department.1*See**Watkins v. State*, 14 So.3d 1128, 1129 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (explaining that a defendant's "claim that the [Department of Corrections] incorrectly interpreted his sentences is not cognizable in a motion for clarification" (citing *Edward v. State*, 966 So.2d 1012, 1013 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) ) ); *Dunbar v. State*, 225 So.3d 971, 972 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) ("As an inmate in the custody of the [Department of Corrections], Dunbar must fully exhaust his administrative remedies regarding gain time or credit owed within the [Department of Corrections] before he is entitled to pursue judicial remedies."); *LaFerte-Diaz v. Dep't of Corr.*, 187 So.3d 908, 909 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) ("If after exhausting his administrative remedies, Diaz is not afforded the relief sought, he may file a petition seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the Department [of Corrections] to credit him with the full amount of jail time awarded by the trial court.").

We further affirm without prejudice for Rey to raise a claim asserting a discrepancy between the oral and written sentence by filing a motion pursuant to Rule 3.800(a). *See**Brown v. State*, 225 So.3d 319, 321 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017).

Affirmed.

1

To the extent Rey seeks to argue for the first time on appeal that the trial court's written sentence does not conform to the oral pronouncements, the proper mechanism by which to raise such a claim is through a Rule 3.800(a) motion. *See**Williams v. State*, 957 So.2d 600, 601 (Fla. 2007) ("[A] claim asserting a discrepancy between an oral and written sentence is cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) proceeding for correction of an illegal sentence.").
EX PARTE Earl W. SANDERS

CR-15-1505

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

April 5, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Habeas corpus pet. dismissed.
#### Loren J. LARSON, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of ALASKA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Amy Rabeau, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-35544

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted November 16, 2016 *

Filed November 21, 2016

Loren J. Larson, Jr., Pro Se.

Mary Barbara Pinkel, Attorney, AGAK—Office of the Alaska Attorney General (Anchorage), Special Prosecutions & Appeals Division, Anchorage, AK, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: LEAVY, BERZON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Loren J. Larson, Jr„ an Alaska state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his action under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”). We *941have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Toguchi v. Chung,*391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We reverse and remand.

Defendants do not dispute on appeal that the policy regarding non-removable wristband identification imposed a substantial burden on Larson’s religious exercise. The sole issue on appeal is whether the district court properly granted summary judgment when it found that defendants established that the non-removable wristband identification was the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling governmental interest in security. However, defendants submitted the declaration of L. Dean Marshall explaining that “some inmates, such as those inmates who serve on work crews or on special projects,” still wear removable identification tags. The declaration does not indicate whether the security concerns underlying the wristband identification requirement are inapplicable to the individuals allowed to wear removable identification tags. Thus, the record shows a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the non-removable wristband identifications are the least restrictive means. *See*42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-l(a) (stating that under RLUI-PA, “[n]o government shall impose a substantial burden on the religious exercise” of a prisoner unless the government establishes, that the burden furthers “a compelling governmental interest” and does so by “the least restrictive means”). Accordingly, we reverse summary judgment for defendants and remand for further proceedings.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21
- 0282 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. RYAN PATRICK SULLIVAN,

Defendant and Appellant
.

**O RDER**  Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including December 15 , 2021 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

November 9 2021

11/09/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0282
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Collaborative Microbial Metabolite Center.                    

*Date:*                         March 16, 2022.                    

*Time:*                         3:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, Two Democracy Plaza, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Paul A. Rushing, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Review Branch, DEA, NIDDK, National Institutes of Health, Room 7345, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-5452, (301) 594-8895,                         *rushingp@extra.niddk.nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.847, Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Research; 93.848, Digestive Diseases and Nutrition Research; 93.849, Kidney Diseases, Urology and Hematology Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

      ( print page 8858)    
Dated: February 10, 2022. 

David W. Freeman,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2022-03250 Filed 2-15-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
EXHIBIT
31.1
 
 CERTIFICATION
 
 PURSUANT
TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 I,
Gerald E. Bisbee, Jr., certify that:
 
 1. I have
reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of ReGen Biologics, Inc. (the
“registrant”);
 
 2. Based
on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of
a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were
made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
report;
 
 3. Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in this report;
 
 4. The
registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing
and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a – 15(e) and 15d – 15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 
 a)
Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;
 
 b)
Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and
 
 c)
Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
 
 5. The
registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 
 a) All
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and
 
 b) Any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial
reporting.
 
 Date:
November 10, 2008
 
 By:
                /s/
      GERALD E. BISBEE, JR.Name:
                Gerald E. Bisbee,
      Jr.Title:
                President
      and Chief Executive Officer
Adam CORA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-0869

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[May 24, 2018]

Adam Cora, Moore Haven, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

Per Curiam.

*Affirmed.*

May, Conner and Forst, JJ., concur.
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 of Mortons Restaurant Group, Inc. (Mortons) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended April 3, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Christopher J. Artinian, the Chief Executive Officer of Mortons, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

(ii) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of Mortons.

Date: May 6, 2011



|                           
|---------------------------
|/s/ CHRISTOPHER J. ARTINIAN
|Christopher J. Artinian    
|Chief Executive Officer
Eddie BROWN v. STATE

CR-16-0055

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

April 21, 2017 Reh. denied May 12, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
No. 06-14-00086-CV

IN THE SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS

TEXARKANA, TEXAS

FAYE COMTE & LAURA SEVERT

Plaintiff - Appellants

v.

SMITH COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT,

JOEL BAKER, CARY NIX, JEFF WARR,

JOANN HAMPTON & TERRY PHILLIPS

Defendants - Appellees

ON APPEAL FROM THE 241ST DISTRICT COURT

OF SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

TRIAL CAUSE NO. 13-2492-C

APPELLEES’ UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE BRIEF

TO THE HONORABLE SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS:

COME NOW Appellees and file this their Unopposed Motion to Extend Time to File

Brief, filed pursuant to Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 10.5(b) and 38.6(d), and would

respectfully show unto the Court as follows:

APPELLEES’ UNOPPOSED MOTION TO 

EXTEND TIME TO FILE BRIEF PAGE 1 OF 3

ACCEPTED

06-14-00086-CV

SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS

TEXARKANA, TEXAS

1/16/2015 4:18:19 PM

DEBBIE AUTREY

CLERK

 FILED IN 6th COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS 1/16/2015 4:18:19 PM DEBBIE AUTREY Clerk
1. The deadline to file Appellees’ Brief is January 29, 2015. 

2. Counsel for Appellees has a case currently set for Trial in the Eastern District of

Texas, Marshall Division on February 9, 2015, and counsel will be meeting with

witnesses and preparing for this Trial. Appellees’ request a 30-day extension to file

their Brief. 

3. This is Appellees’ first request for an extension of the deadline to file Appellees’

responsive brief and is not sought for purposes of undue delay, but so that the

Appellees may have time to adequately respond to Appellants’ arguments and craft

a brief which will aid the Court in deciding the very important issues presented in

this appeal. 

 Appellants do not oppose the relief requested in this Motion. 

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Appellees respectfully request that the

Court extend the time to file their Brief to February 27, 2015, and for any and all other relief

to which they have shown themselves to be justly entitled.

Respectfully submitted,

FLOWERS DAVIS, P.L.L.C.

1021 ESE Loop 323, Suite 200

Tyler, Texas 75701

(903) 534-8063

(903) 534-1650 Facsimile

 

ROBERT S. DAVIS

State Bar No. 05544200

rsd@flowersdavis.com

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES

APPELLEES’ UNOPPOSED MOTION TO

EXTEND TIME TO FILE BRIEF PAGE 2 OF 3
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

I hereby certify that on January 16, 2015, Counsel for Appellees’ office contacted

counsel for Appellants, Laura Severt. Ms. Severt does not oppose this motion.

_____________________________

Richard B. Vance

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that the above and foregoing instrument was served upon all counsel

of record in the above entitled and numbered cause on January 16, 2015, in the following

manner:

 X Via Electronic Filing

 X Via Facsimile

_____________________________

Robert S. Davis

APPELLEES’ UNOPPOSED MOTION TO

EXTEND TIME TO FILE BRIEF PAGE 3 OF 3
#### Mark Allen KOCH Plaintiff-Appellant v. Michael KOZEAL; Jan Oeltjen; Tim Liebert; Mickey Schneider; Ron Jepsen; Mike Criss; Gwenda Horky; J. D. Keefe; City of Sargent, Nebraska Defendants-Appellees

No. 16-4197

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: September 20, 2017

Filed: October 4, 2017

Mark Allen Koch, Pro Se

P. Stephen Potter, Esq., Potter Law Offices, Gothenburg, NE, Terrance Waite, Waite *&*McWha, North Platte, NE, for Defendants-Appellees Michael Kozeal, Jan Oeltjen, Tim Liebert, Mickey Schneider, Ron Jepsen, Mike Criss, Gwenda Horky, J. D. Keefe

P. Stephen Potter, Esq., Potter Law Offices, Gothenburg, NE, Christopher A. Sievers, Timmermier & Gross, Omaha, NE, Terrance Waite, Waite & McWha, North Platte, NE, for Defendant-Appellee City of Sargent, Nebraska

Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Mark Koch appeals from the order of the District Court1 granting defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

After de novo review, we conclude that the District Court properly dismissed the complaint. See Skit Int’l, Ltd. v. DAC Techs. of Ark., Inc., 487 F.3d 1154, 1156 (8th Cir.) (standard of review), cert. denied, 552 U.S. 991, 128 S.Ct. 495, 169 L.Ed.2d 340 (2007). Koch’s filings clearly indicate that he brought the instant suit seeking to overturn a previously entered state-court judgment, and the District Court correctly concluded that it had no jurisdiction. See Dodson v. Univ. of Ark. for Med. Scis., 601 F.3d 750, 754 (8th Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (noting that federal courts generally have no subject matter jurisdiction to consider appeals from state-court judgments), cert. denied, 562 U.S. 1135, 131 S.Ct. 902, 178 L.Ed.2d 747 (2011). We affirm the judgment and deny Koch’s motions to supplement the record.

1

. The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska.
James W. CAMPBELL v. STATE

CR-16-0072

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

May 26, 2017 Reh. denied June 16, 2017

Affirmed.
|   | 1. | I      am the Chief Executive Officer and Interim Financial Officer of Green St.      Energy, Inc. |
|--------|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | Attached      to this certification is Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30,      2009, a periodic report (the “periodic report”) filed by the issuer with      the Securities Exchange Commission pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), which      contains financial statements. |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 3. | I      hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,  that |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | · | The      periodic report containing the financial statements fully complies with      the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act,      and |
|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | · | The      information in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the issuer      for the periods presented. |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| November      20, 2009 | /s/ Anthony Cataldo              |   |
|------------------------|----------------------------------|--------|
|                   | Anthony      Cataldo             |   |
|                   | Chief      Executive Officer and |   |
|                   | Interim      Financial Officer   |   |

----
EX PARTE Robert Thomas MAYS

CR-16-0227

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

April 5, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Petition for writ of prohibition dismissed.