alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
FIRST AMENDMENT TO


CONSULTING AGREEMENT







This First Amendment to Consulting Agreement (this “Amendment”) is made and entered into as of this 22nd day of February, 2011 by and between General Cannabis, Inc. (f/k/a LC Luxuries Limited), a Nevada corporation (the “Company”) and Douglas Francis, an individual (the “Consultant”).







RECITALS







WHEREAS, the Company and the Consultant are parties to that certain Consulting Agreement dated as of November 19, 2010 (the “Original Agreement”);







WHEREAS, both the Company and the Consultant desire to amend the terms of the Original Agreement to extend the date that a payment is due from the Company to Consultant.







NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises herein contained, the parties hereto hereby agree as follows:







1.           Paragraph 2 of the Original Agreement is amended and restated in its entirety as follows:







“2.           TERM OF AGREEMENT







This Agreement shall be in full force and effect as of the date hereof through and including that period which ends three (3) full years after the date of this Agreement.  The Company and the Consultant shall each have the right to terminate this Agreement in the event of the bankruptcy, insolvency, or assignment for the benefit of creditors of the other party, in the event the other party fails to comply with the terms of this Agreement, or on thirty (30) days written notice.”







2.           Paragraph 3(a) of the Original Agreement is amended and restated in its entirety as follows:







“3.          COMPENSATION TO CONSULTANT








	
  

	
a.

	
Upon consummation of the Transaction, the Company shall pay to Consultant a cash fee equal (i) Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000) within thirty (30) days, plus (ii) One Million Eight Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,800,000), payable one-half on June 30, 2012, and one-half on January 10, 2013.”












3.           Other than as set forth herein, the terms and conditions of Original Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.


 




  





Page 1of 2











  






 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be duly executed as of the date first written above.








	
“Company”

	  	
“Consultant”


	  	  	  
	
General Cannabis, Inc.,

	  	  
	
a Nevada corporation

	  	  
	  	  	  
	
/s/ James Pakulis

	  	
/s/ Douglas Francis


	
By:           James Pakulis

	  	
By:           Douglas Francis


	
Its:           CEO

	  	  





 




  





Page 2of 2
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**





**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 Optigenex Inc. (the "Company") on Form
      10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Daniel Zwiren, the
      Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
      1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that:





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





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





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Optigenex Inc. and will be retained by Optigenex Inc. and furnished to the
      Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.




/s/
              DANIEL ZWIRENDaniel
              ZwirenChief
                Financial Officer
              May 21, 2007
**Exhibit 32**

**WrittenStatement of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer**

**Pursuantto Section 906**

**of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18U.S.C. Section 1350)**

The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and theChief Financial Officer of Regal Entertainment Group, a Delaware corporation(the “Company”), each hereby certifies that, to his/her knowledge on the datehereof:

(a)                                 the Form 10-Q of the Company for the third quarter endedSeptember 28, 2006, filed on the date hereof with the Securities and ExchangeCommission (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(b)                                the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 
|   | /s/ Michael L. Campbell |
|--------|-------------------------|
|   | Michael L. Campbell     |
|   | Chief Executive Officer |
|   | November 7, 2006        |
|   |                    |
|   | /s/ Amy E. Miles        |
|   | Amy E. Miles            |
|   | Chief Financial Officer |
|   | November 7, 2006        |

 

----
CONSENT
      OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT








I
      hereby
      consent to the use, in the Forms 10-Q Quarterly Reports, of Artfest
      International





Corporation
      for the periods ended March 31, June 30, and September 30, 2005, of my reports





dated
      January 15, 2007 for the periods ended and as at March 31, June 30, and
      September 31,





2005
      relating to the financial statements, and notes, of Artfest International
      Corporattion, which





appear
      in
      said quarterly reports or are referenced in subsequent reports of said
      company.














/s/
      Thomas Bauman, C.P.A.





Huntington
      Station, New York





February
      9, 2007
## § 152.25 Exemptions for pesticides of a character not requiring FIFRA regulation.

(f) Minimum risk pesticides —(1) Exempted products. Products containing the following active ingredients are exempt from the requirements of FIFRA, alone or in combination with other substances listed in this paragraph, provided that all of the criteria of this section are met. 

### Castor oil (U.S.P. or equivalent) Cedar oil Cinnamon and cinnamon oil Citric acid Citronella and citronella oil Cloves and clove oil Corn gluten meal Corn oil Cottonseed oil Dried blood Eugenol Garlic and garlic oil Geraniol Geranium oil Lauryl sulfate Lemongrass oil Linseed oil Malic acid Mint and mint oil Peppermint and peppermint oil 2-Phenethyl propionate (2-phenylethyl propionate) Potassium sorbate

### Putrescent whole egg solids Rosemary and rosemary oil Sesame (includes ground sesame plant) and sesame oil Sodium chloride (common salt) Sodium lauryl sulfate Soybean oil Thyme and thyme oil White pepper Zinc metal strips (consisting solely of zinc metal and impurities) (2) Permitted inerts . A pesticide product exempt under paragraph (f)(1 ) of this section may only include inert ingredients listed in the most current List 4A. This list is updated periodically. The most current list may be obtained by contacting the Registration Division at the appropriate address as set forth in 40 CFR 150.17(a) or (b). (3) Other conditions of exemption. All of the following conditions must be met for products to be exempted under this section: (i) Each product containing the substance must bear a la bel identifying the name and percentage (by weight) of each active ingredient and the name of each inert ingredient. (ii) The product must not bear claims either to control or mitigate microorganisms that pose a threat to human health, including but not limited to disease transmitting bacteria or vi ruses, or claims to control insects or rodents carrying specific diseases, including, but not lim ited to ticks that carry Lyme disease. (iii) The product must not include any false and misleadi ng labeling statements, includ ing those listed in 40 CFR 156.10(a)(5)(i) through (viii). [53 FR 15977, May 4, 1988, as amend ed at 59 FR 2751, Jan. 19, 1994; 61 FR 8878, Mar. 6, 1996; 66 FR 64764, Dec. 14, 2001; 71 FR 35545, June 21, 2006]
In the MATTER OF Theo Walker MITCHELL, Respondent.

Appellate Case Nos. 2019-000285 2019-000286

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

April 25, 2019

**492ORDER

The Office of Disciplinary Counsel asks this Court to place respondent on interim suspension pursuant to Rule 17(b), RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR. The petition also seeks appointment of the Receiver pursuant to Rule 31, RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR.

IT IS ORDERED that respondent's license to practice law in this state is suspended until further order of this Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Peyre Thomas Lumpkin, Esquire, is hereby appointed to assume responsibility for respondent's client files, trust account(s), escrow account(s), operating account(s), and any other law office accounts respondent may maintain. Mr. Lumpkin shall take action as required by Rule 31, RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR, to protect the interests of respondent's clients. Mr. Lumpkin may make disbursements from respondent's trust account(s), escrow account(s), operating account(s), and any other law office accounts respondent may maintain that are necessary to effectuate this appointment.

This Order, when served on any bank or other financial institution maintaining trust, escrow and/or operating account(s) of respondent, shall serve as an injunction to prevent respondent from making withdrawals from the account(s) and shall further serve as notice to the bank or other financial institution that Peyre Thomas Lumpkin, Esquire, has been duly appointed by this Court.

*591Finally, this Order, when served on any office of the United States Postal Service, shall serve as notice that Peyre Thomas Lumpkin, Esquire, has been duly appointed by this Court and has the authority to receive respondent's mail and the authority **493to direct that respondent's mail be delivered to Mr. Lumpkin's office.

Mr. Lumpkin's appointment shall be for a period of no longer than nine months unless an extension of the period of appointment is requested.

FOR THE COURT

*/s/ Donald W. Beatty*, C. J.

Donald W. Beatty
Exhibit 99-5
------------

                      Certificate Pursuant to Section 1350
                  of Chapter 63 of Title 18 United States Code
                  --------------------------------------------


         The undersigned officer hereby certifies, as to the Amended Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q/A of Exelon Generation Company, LLC for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2002, that (i) the report fully complies with the requirements
of section 13(a) or 15(d) 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 Exelon Generation Company,
LLC.



Date:  October 30, 2002                     /s/ Ruth Ann M. Gillis
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Ruth Ann M. Gillis
                                            Senior Vice President and
                                            Chief Financial Officer
                                            Exelon Generation Company, LLC
## F I FTH 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
Case No. 5 D 2 3

- 446 LT Case No. 2013

- DR

- 002635

- FM

_____________________________
J ACQUELINE V ARNER ,

Petitioner

,

v.

B RIAN V ARNER ,
Respondent

.

_____________________________

Petition for Certiorari Review of Order from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Suzanne Bass , Judge

.
Jason Brian Phillips , of J. Brian Phillips, P.A.

, Orlando , for Petitioner

.
Beth M. Terry , of Law Office of B.M. Terry, P.A.

, Jacksonville , for Re spondent

.
October 6, 2023

P ER C URIAM

.

Former Wife petitions this Court for a writ of certiorari seeking to quash the trial court’s order regarding child visitation dated November 14, 2022. Former Wife alleges this court has jur isdiction pursuant to a rtic le V, section 4(b)(3), of the Florida Constitution , and Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(b)(3)

,2 which confer original jurisdiction upon district courts of appeal to issue writs of common law certiorari. However, nonfinal orders that determine “the rights or obligations of a party regarding child custody or time

- sharing under a parenting plan” are app ealable under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iii)b. “A ‘child custody proceeding’ is defined as one in which legal custody, physical custody, residential ca r e, or visitation with respect to a child is at issue.” Hickey v. Burlinson, 33 So. 3d 827, 829 (Fla 5th DCA 2010) (citing § 61.503(4), Fla. Stat. (2009)). Therefore, an order regarding child visitation is an appealable, nonfinal order. Id. As a result, we treat this matter as an appeal of a nonfinal order rather than a petition for writ of certiorari and affirm on all issues without further discussion. 1

A FFIRMED

.

L AMBERT , B OATWRIGHT , and P RATT , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________

1 See Fla. R. App. P. 9.040(c) (“If a party seeks an improper remedy, the cause shall be treated as if the proper remedy had been sought .

. . .”).
No. 09-9556.

#### Rashawn Bias, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 1080, 130 S. Ct. 2119,

176 L. Ed. 2d 744,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3417.

April 19, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 352 Fed. Appx. 162.
MEMORANDUM

DATE: 06/18/2014

FROM: Laura Farris/EPA Region 8

TO: Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR–2013-0602

SUBJECT: Region 8’s Regional Tribal Operations Committee Meeting held on 06/18/2014

SUMMARY: 

EPA Region 8’s Climate Change Coordinator, Laura Farris, presented information on the proposed Clean

Power Plan for Existing Power Plants at the Region 8 Regional Tribal Operations Committee Meeting 

held on 06/18/2014. The Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants was proposed on June 2, 2014.

ATTENDEES:

EPA Region 8

Alfreda Mitre

Laura Farris

Blake Huff

Diana Hammer

Jennifer Wintersteen

Tribal Members

Deb Madison Environmental Director Assiniboine & Sioux Tribe

Gerald Wagner Environmental Director Blackfeet Tribe

David D. Nelson Environmental Director Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe

Mike Durglo Environmental Director Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes

Wanda Gourneau Environmental Director Crow Creek Sioux Tribe

Connie Howe Environmental Director Crow Tribe

Ryan Ortiz Environmental Director Eastern Shoshone & Northern Arapaho Tribes

Ina Nez Perce Environmental Director Gros Ventre and Assiniboine Tribes

George Honeywell Environmental Director Lower Brule Sioux Tribe

Charlene Alden Environmental Director Northern Cheyenne Tribe

Suzy (Lloydell) Mesteth Environmental Director Oglala Sioux Tribe

Gaylord Robb Environmental Director Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah

Kevin Boyd Environmental Director Rosebud Sioux Tribe

Jerry Eastman Acting Env. Director, Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate

Tom Johnson Division Head Southern Ute Indian Tribe

Joshua Tweeton Environmental Director Spirit Lake Nation

Allyson Two Bears Environmental Director Standing Rock Sioux Tribe

Edmund Baker Environmental Director Three Affiliated Tribes

Cora Champagn Environmental Director Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa

Ferron Sacakuku Director Ute Indian Tribe

Scott Clow Environmental Director Ute Mountain Ute Tribe

Richard Leasure Environmental Director Yankton Sioux Tribe

ATTACHMENTS

111d Presentation
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 17-0047V 

Filed: April 12, 2018

UNPUBLISHED

ANGELA TURNER, 

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Special Processing Unit (SPU); 

Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

Causation-In-Fact; Influenza (Flu) 

Vaccine; Shoulder Injury Related to 

Vaccine Administration (SIRVA)

Joseph Alexander Vuckovich, Maglio Christopher & Toale, PA, Washington, DC, for 

petitioner.

Jennifer Leigh Reynaud, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

On January 12, 2017, petitioner filed a petition for compensation under the 

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.,

2 (the 

“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered a left shoulder injury as a result of 

an influenza vaccination received on October 15, 2015. Petition at 1. The case was 

assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On April 12, 2018, respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes

that petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report

at 1. Specifically, respondent “has determined that petitioner’s alleged injury is 

consistent with a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) that was 

 

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the 

undersigned intends to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance with 

the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of 

Electronic Government Services). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to 

identify and move to redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an 

unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, the undersigned agrees that the identified material fits 

within this definition, the undersigned will redact such material from public access.

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for 

ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. 

§ 300aa (2012).
caused by the administration of petitioner’s flu vaccination.” Id. at 3. Respondent 

further agrees that “petitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation 

under the Vaccine Act.” Id.

In view of respondent’s position and the evidence of record, the 

undersigned finds that petitioner is entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 s/Nora Beth Dorsey

Nora Beth Dorsey

 Chief Special Master
#### Catherine L. Lyons, Appellant, v Lisa H. Rosenblatt et al., Respondents.

[719 NYS2d 883]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O’Connell, J.), entered September 10, 1999, which, upon a jury verdict finding that she did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), dismisses the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is granted, with costs to abide the event.

The trial court erred in refusing the plaintiffs request to submit to the jury the question of whether the plaintiff sustained a permanent loss of use of a body organ, member, function, or system *(see,*Insurance Law § 5102 [d]). Failure to properly allow the jury to pass upon that issue was error, since sufficient proof was elicited at trial to allow the jury to find that the plaintiff sustained a permanent loss of use of a body organ, member, function, or system *(see, Tortorello v Landi,*136 AD2d 545).

The trial court also erred in preventing the plaintiff from *615eliciting testimony as to whether her injuries were permanent. It is well settled that expert testimony on a matter requiring professional or skilled knowledge is permissible *(see, Dufel v Green,*84 NY2d 795). Krausman, J. P., S. Miller, Luciano and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.
STATE of North Carolina, v. Larry MCCANN, Defendant.

No. COA18-1053

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: September 3, 2019

NO PREJUDICIAL ERROR.
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Harry Chew, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of

Bi-Optic Ventures, Inc. (the Company) 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, to my knowledge:



1.  This Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period

ended November 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange

Commission (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.







Date:  December 16, 2008



/s/  Harry Chew

Harry Chew, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer













1
No. 09-9525.

#### Darnell Nesbit, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 1079, 130 S. Ct. 2117,

176 L. Ed. 2d 742,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3399.

April 19, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 350 Fed. Appx. 984.
No. 09-1230.

#### Barry J. Jewell, Petitioner v. United States.

560 U.S. 907, 130 S. Ct. 3297,

176 L. Ed. 2d 1188,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3968.

May 17, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 586 F.3d 1089.
STATE of North Carolina v. Sethy Tony SEAM

No. 82A14-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 14, 2019

Staples Hughes, Durham.

Kathryn L. VandenBerg, Assistant Appellant Defender, for Seam, Sethy Tony

Kimberly N. Callahan, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Garry W. Frank, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 22nd of January 2019 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 14th of August 2019."

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 5th of April 2019 by Defendant to Amend Petition for Discretionary Review:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 14th of August 2019."

Therefore the case is docketed as of the date of this order's certification. Briefs of the respective parties shall be submitted to this Court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 15(g)(2).

Ervin, J. and Davis, J. recused