alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Stock Agreement


 


This Stock Agreement (the “Agreement”), dated as of December
15, 2017, confirms our understanding with respect to the issuance of Common Stock of Liberated Syndication Inc. (the “Company”)
to John Busshaus (the “Employee”) with respect to the matters set forth herein.


 


The Board of Directors has awarded 900,000 shares of the Company’s
common stock (the “Stock”), subject to certain milestones and forfeiture clauses, to the Employee. In an effort to
incentivize the employee, the Board of Directors has set forth the following milestones and forfeiture clauses for these shares
of stock.


 


1. $5.00 per share


When the Company obtains an average of $5.00 per share closing price (adjusted
for stock splits) for any 10 consecutive trading days, the Employee will retain 50% of the stock (450,000 shares), if obtained
within 30 months.


 


2. $7.00 per share


When the Company obtains an average of $7.00 per share closing price (adjusted
for stock splits) for any 10 consecutive trading days, the Employee will retain 50% of the stock (450,000 shares), if obtained
within 36 months.


 


The effect of this grant on the market cap of the Company will NOT be taken
into consideration in attaining the milestone goals for the stock agreement dated April 13, 2017 between John Busshaus and Liberated
Syndication Inc.


 


 


ACCEPTED AND AGREED TO:


 


John Busshaus


 


 


By:___________________________________________________


Name: John Busshaus


 


 


Liberated Syndication Inc.


 


 


By:_____________________________________________________


Name: Chris Spencer


Title: Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

I, Michael Yom, President and Chief Executive Officer of Biofield Corp. and I, Joseph Repko, Chief Financial Officer of Biofield Corp. (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)

the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 (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.



|Date:  March 5, 2007 | By: | /s/ Michael Yom                      
|-------------------- | --- | -------------------------------------
|                     |     | Michael Yom                          
|                     |     | (President & Chief Executive Officer)



|Date:  March 5, 2007 | By: | /s/ Joseph Repko         
|-------------------- | --- | -------------------------
|                     |     | Joseph Repko             
|                     |     | (Chief Financial Officer)
Exhibit 99.1


I, David M. Long, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Biofield Corp. (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 quarterly
report;

3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

4.   The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) for the
registrant and have:

a)   designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiary,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

b)   evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c)   presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;

5.   The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation, 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 in the design or operation of internal
controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b)   any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls.

6.   The registrant's other certifying officer and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.


Date: November 14, 2002                By: /s/ DAVID M. LONG
                                           -----------------
                                           David M. Long, Jr., M.D., Ph.D.
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer
                                           (Principal Executive Officer)


                                       21
No. 11-9307.

#### Henderson *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 567 U. S. 934.] Motion of petitioner for ap*811pointment of counsel granted. Patricia A. Gilley, Esq., of Shreveport, La., is appointed to serve as counsel for petitioner.
No. 11-10289.

#### Marioni-Melendez *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                       1,993,506
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   51,881
<ALLOWANCES>                                    12,500
<INVENTORY>                                     16,597
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,069,484
<PP&E>                                         240,165
<DEPRECIATION>                                 172,799
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,784,155
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          481,867
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     3,334,084
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,184,872
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,784,155
<SALES>                                        322,313
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               322,313
<CGS>                                          659,832
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,455,506
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              43,591
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (1,050,849)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                300,000
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (750,849)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (1.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (1.06)
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.4


 


AMENDMENT TO NONQUALIFIED STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT


 


THIS AMENDMENT TO NONQUALIFIED
STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT (the “Amendment”) is made effective as of __________ (the “Effective Date”) by and
between Drone Aviation Holding Corp., a Nevada corporation (the “Corporation”) and ________ (the “Optionee”)
(collectively the “Parties”).


 


BACKGROUND


 


A.     The
Corporation and Optionee are the parties to that certain Nonqualified Stock Option Agreement for ________ shares of the Corporation’s
Common Stock, par value $0.0001 per share that was granted by the Corporation to the Optionee on _________ (the “Option
Agreement”); and


 


B.    
The Parties desire to amend the Option Agreement, as set forth below.


 


NOW THEREFORE, in consideration
of the execution and delivery of the Amendment and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which
are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:


 


1.         Section 8 – Termination of the Option Agreement shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:


 


8. Termination of Employment.
If the Optionee’s employment with or service to the Company and all Related Corporations is terminated by the Optionee for
any reason other than death, Disability, Normal or Early Retirement or Good Reason (as defined below), the Option shall thereupon
terminate, except that the portion of any Option that was exercisable on the date of such termination of employment or service
may be exercised at any time up to and including the Expiration Date.


 


2.         This
Amendment shall be deemed part of, but shall take precedence over and supersede any provisions to the contrary contained in the
Option Agreement. All initial capitalized terms used in this Amendment shall have the same meaning as set forth in the Option
Agreement unless otherwise provided. Except as specifically modified hereby, all of the provisions of the Option Agreement, which
are not in conflict with the terms of this Amendment, shall remain in full force and effect.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have
executed this Amendment as of the date first above written.


 


	DRONE AVIATION HOLDING CORP.	 	ACCEPTED AND ACKNOWLEDGED:
	 	 	 	 	 
	By:	 	 	By:	           
	 	Jay H. Nussbaum	 	Name:	 
	 	Chief Executive Officer
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 Broadcaster, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I Martin Wade, III, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

1.

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

2.

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



|                                                                     
|---------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                     
|                                                                     
|/s/ Martin Wade III                                                  
|Martin Wade, III,
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer



Date: February 17, 2009

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

The State of Texas, * From the 106th District

Court of Gaines County,

Trial Court No. 13-4347.

Vs. No. 11-14-00013-CR * January 16, 2014

Cori Jetton Riley, * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

(Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson, J., and Bailey, J.)

 This court has considered the State of Texas’s motion to dismiss its appeal and 

concludes that the motion should be granted. Therefore, in accordance with this 

court’s opinion, the appeal is dismissed. The costs incurred by reason of this appeal 

are taxed against the State of Texas.
Juan Gerardo Oliva, Rosina Oliva, Indi vidually and as

Successor Trustee of the Davila Family Trusts B, C, and D, and Alma Guadalupe /s


# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

August 20, 2015

N o. 04

- 14

- 00657

- CV

Richard LESHIN , Successor Trustee of the Davila Family Trust, T rust A, Appellant

v.

Juan Gerardo OLIVA , Rosina Oliva, Individually and as Successor Trustee of the Davila Family Trusts B, C, and D, and Alma Guadalupe Davila, Appellee s

From the 406th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2008

- CVF

- 000855

- D4 Honorable Oscar J. Hale, Jr., Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice Marialyn Barnard, Justice Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

The panel has considered the Appellee Juan Gerardo Oliva’s Motion for Rehearing, and

the motion is DENIED.

_________________________________ Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WH EREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 20th day of August, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
No. 11-9696.

#### Lewellyn et vir, on Behalf of J. L. et al. *v.*Sarasota County School Board.

C. A. 11th Cir. Motion of petitioners for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis*denied. Petitioners are allowed until July 2, 2012, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.
<PAGE>
 

                                                                      EXHIBIT 11



             STATEMENT RE COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS (LOSS) PER SHARE
                                (In thousands)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                         Quarter Ended
                                                     ---------------------
                                                      April 21,  April 20,
                                                        1996       1997
                                                     ----------  ---------
<S>                                                   <C>        <C>
Primary earnings per share:
Weighted average number of shares
 outstanding................................              7,935     32,559
Incremental shares pursuant to Staff
 Accounting Bulletin No. 83.................              1,744      2,403
                                                     ----------  ---------
Adjusted primary weighted average
 number of common and equivalent shares 
 outstanding................................              9,679     34,962
                                                     ==========  =========
Fully diluted earnings per share:
Weighted average number of shares
 outstanding................................              7,935     32,559
Incremental shares pursuant to Staff
 Accounting Bulletin No. 83.................              1,744      2,403
                                                     ----------  --------- 
Adjusted fully diluted weighted average
 number of common and equivalent shares
 outstanding................................              9,679     34,962
                                                     ==========  =========
</TABLE>
### SAT Report PMN Number: P-11-0532 SAT Date: 8/2/2011 Print Date: 7/1/2013

Related cases : Health related cases : Ecotox related cases:

Concern levels : Type of Concern: Health Eco Comments Level of Concern: 1-2 3 Health: PMN ; Eco: intact material 2 3 Health: Deg Pdt ; Eco: high concern for toxicity of incomplete incineratio n p roducts to terrestrial organisms
Persistence Bioaccum Toxicity Comments 3 31 2

Exposure Based Review : Health: N o Ecotox: N o Routes of exposure : Health: Dermal Drinking Water Inhalation Ecotox: All releases to water Fate: ;

P 2 Rec Comments : Comment: N o Commen t Keywords : Keywords: IRR-E,S,L LUNG AQUATOX-A,C

LIVER BLOOD MALE REPROIMMUNO ONCO
AQUATOX -C Summary of Assessment :
Fate : Fate Summary: P-11-0532 FATE: log Kow = 4.98 (E)
VP = 0.90 torr at 25 C (E) BP = 181 C (E) H = 1.44E-2 (E) log Koc = 6.02 (E) log Fish BCF = 2.95 (E) log Fish BAF = 3.93 (E) POTW removal (%) = 50-90 via sorption and stripping Time for complete ultimate aerobic biodeg > mo Sorption to soils/sediments = moderate Volatilization half-life from a standard river = 2 hrs Volatilization half-life from a standard lake = 8 da Atmospheric Oxidation Half-life = 4.2 hr via OH radical PBT Potential: P3B3 *CEB FATE: Migration to ground water = moderate

Health : Health Summary: Absorption is moderate all routes, based on p hysical/chemical properties. There is concern for irritation to the eye, skin, and lung, and for disturbances to the GI tract if ingested, based on information in the PMN MSDS.

. For the potential degradation product, based on test data for the analog concerns are liver toxicity, blood toxicity, and male reproductive toxicity [rat 28-day oral N OAEL = 50 mg/kg, LOAEL = 150 mg/kg with liver toxicity; rat 90-day oral LOAEL = 10 mg/kg based on decreased body weight in males at all doses and liver toxicity and anemia at 200 mg/kg; there were toxic effects on the testes in 2 males in the 90-day oral study that were judged by the reviewer to be indicative of the potential for male reproductive toxicity. There is also concern for immunosuppression and oncogenicity based on data for

Ecotox : Test Organism Test Type Test End Point Predicted Measured Commentsfish 96-h LC50 0.97 daphnid 48-h LC50 0.15 green algal 96-h EC50 0.063 fish

_ chronic value 0.018 daphnid

_ chronic value 0.017
algal

_ chronic value 0.027
Sewage Sludge 3-h EC50

_ Sewage Sludge

_ Chronic Value _

Ecotox Values Comments: Predictions are based on SARs for ; SAR chemical class = MW 423; log Kow = 4.98 (EPI), 4.57 (ACD); p H7; 100% active ingredients and mean measured concentrations; hardness <180.0 mg/L as CaCO3; and TOC <2.0 mg/L; high concern for the degradation product
Factors Values Comments Assessment Factor 10 Concentration of Concern ( p pb) 2

SARs new chemicals category:
Ecotox Category
Ecotox Factors Comments:
SAT Chair: J. Kwiat
#### Nutjaya WANNARAT, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 17-1448

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 16, 2017

Decided: December 4, 2017

Janeen Hicks Pierre, PIERRE LAW, PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Petitioner. Chad A. Readier, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Keith I. McManus, Assistant Director, Scott M. Marconda, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*181PER CURIAM:

Nutjaya Wannarat, a native and citizen of Thailand, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing her appeal from the Immigration Judge’s decision denying her motion for a continuance.

An Immigration Judge “may grant a continuance for good cause shown.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (2017). We review the denial of a motion for a continuance for abuse of discretion. *Lendo v. Gonzales,*493 F.3d 439, 441 (4th Cir. 2007); *Onyeme v. INS,*146 F.3d 227, 231 (4th Cir. 1998). We will uphold the denial of a continuance “unless it was made without a rational explanation, it inexplicably departed from established policies, or it rested on an impermissible basis, e.g., invidious discrimination against a particular race or group.” *Lendo,*493 F.3d at 441 (internal quotation marks omitted). Upon review of the record and Wannarat’s claims, we find no abuse of discretion in the denial of her motion for a continuance. *See In re Hashmi,*24 I. & N. Dec. 785, 790-92 (B.I.A. 2009).

Wannarat also contends that her due process rights were violated because the denial of a continuance deprived her of the opportunity to challenge a marriage fraud finding made in connection with a prior visa petition that was withdrawn and thus could not be appealed. We review due process claims de novo. *See Lin v. Mukasey,*517 F.3d 685, 691-92 (4th Cir. 2008). We have reviewed the record and conclude that Wannarat cannot succeed on her due process claim because she fails to demonstrate resulting prejudice. *See Anim v. Mukasey,*535 F.3d 243, 256 (4th Cir. 2008). Further, as noted by the Board, Wannarat’s current husband had the ability to appeal the denial of the visa petition impacted by the prior marriage fraud determination.

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 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.

*PETITION DENIED*
No. 11-9707.

#### Carr *v.*California.

Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.
ll3 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

GROWS SELLERS 

A’HORNCY GWLRIL 
!f 

Z,!_ 

.:. 

;... 
IV. 

. . 
. 

II8 

Hon. E9. E. Catee - page 8 

120 

i ,! i 

: 

, 

\.
1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Navient Student Loan Trust 2014-8 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);
 
 2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;
 
 4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer and administrator have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreement and administration agreement, as applicable, in all material respects; and
 
 5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K. In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated party: Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as indenture trustee.
   
   
 
 /s/ SOMSAK CHIVAVIBUL