alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ex1041.htm












LOAN AGREEMENT


June 29, 2016







Tradex Capital Corp., (the “Lender”) of 1055 West Hastings Street, Suite #1910, Vancouver, BC, V6E 2E9, advanced USD$25,000 (the “Principal Sum”) to Cell MedX Corp. (the “Borrower”) of 2857 Sumter Valley Circle, Henderson, NV 89052.  The Lender advanced the funds on June 29, 2016.







The Borrower agrees to repay the Principal Sum on demand, together with interest calculated and compounded monthly at the rate of 6% per year (the “Interest”) from June 29, 2016.  The Borrower is liable for repayment for the Principal Sum and accrued Interest and any costs that the Lender incurs in trying to collect the Principal Sum and the Interest.







 


The Borrower will evidence the debt and its repayment of the Principal Sum and the Interest with a promissory note in the attached form.


 


LENDER                                                                                            BORROWER


Tradex Capital Corp.                                                                      Cell MedX Corp.







Per:                                                                                                      Per:












/s/ William Friesen                                                                         /s/ Yanika Silina                                                                      


Authorized Signatory                                                                      Yanika Silina, CFO
















  





  











  








PROMISSORY NOTE







Principal Amount:  USD$25,000                                                                                                                                June 29, 2016












For value received Cell MedX Corp., (the “Borrower”) promises to pay on demand to the order of Tradex Capital Corp. (the “Lender”) the sum of $25,000 lawful money of United States (the “Principal Sum”) together with interest on the Principal Sum from June 29, 2016 (“Effective Date”) both before and after maturity, default and judgment at the Interest Rate as defined below.







For the purposes of this promissory note, Interest Rate means 6 per cent per year.  Interest at the Interest Rate must be calculated and compounded monthly not in advance from and including the Effective Date (for an effective rate of 6.2% per annum calculated monthly), and is payable together with the Principal Sum when the Principal Sum is repaid.







The Borrower may repay the Principal Sum and the Interest in whole or in part at any time.







The Borrower waives presentment, protest, notice of protest and notice of dishonour of this promissory note.







BORROWER


Cell MedX Corp.







Per:












/s/ Yanika Silina







Yanika Silina, CFO
1
	 



    	 



    

 






    	 	
2
	 



    	 



    

 






    	 	
3
	 



    	 



    

 






    	 	
4
	 



    	 



    

 






    	 	
5
	 



    	 



    

 






    	 	
6
	 



    	 



    

 






    	 	
7
	 



    	 



    

 






    	 	
8
	 



    	 



    

 






    	 	
9
	 



    	 



    

 






    	 	
10
	 



    	 



    

 





 



    	 	
11
EX PARTE Morgan WILLIAMS

CR-16-1010

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

August 30, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Habeas corpus pet. dismissed.
Phillip T. SENTERS, DOC #165399, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-1447

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed January 30, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
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.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         December 30, 2024.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 16, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 1083 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-851, K2025-852.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-30832 Filed 12-27-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

IROBOT CORPORATION, 

Appellant

v.

SHARKNINJA OPERATING LLC, SHARKNINJA 

MANAGEMENT LLC, SHARKNINJA SALES 

COMPANY, 

Appellees

______________________

2022-1235

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2020-

00735.

______________________

O R D E R

The parties having so agreed, it is ordered that:

(1) The proceeding is DISMISSED under Fed. R. App. 

P. 42 (b).

Case: 22-1235 Document: 14 Page: 1 Filed: 05/05/2022
2 IROBOT CORPORATION V. SHARKNINJA OPERATING LLC

(2) Each side shall bear their own costs.

FOR THE COURT

May 5, 2022

Date /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner 

Clerk of Court

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: May 5, 2022

Case: 22-1235 Document: 14 Page: 2 Filed: 05/05/2022
Jamison Ray JOHNSON, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-4642

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 03, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
# C_2021019EN.01003401.xml

| 18.1.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 19/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/34

---

Action brought on 23 October 2020 — Republic of Cyprus v European Parliament and Council of the European Union

(Case C-550/20)

(2021/C 19/37)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Cyprus (represented by: Eirini Neofytou)

Defendants: European Parliament and Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Directive (EU) 2020/1057 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2020 laying down specific rules with respect to Directive 96/71/EC and Directive 2014/67/EU for posting drivers in the road transport sector and amending Directive 2006/22/EC as regards enforcement requirements and Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012, and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Directive (EU) 2020/1057 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2020 laying down specific rules with respect to Directive 96/71/EC and Directive 2014/67/EU for posting drivers in the road transport sector and amending Directive 2006/22/EC as regards enforcement requirements and Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012, and

| — | order the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action the applicant relies on five grounds for annulment:

First ground for annulment: The applicant submits that the defendants infringed the principle of proportionality, as provided for in Article 5(4) TEU and in Article 1 of the Protocol (No 2) on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, annexed to the EU Treaty and to FEU Treaty.

Second ground for annulment: The applicant submits that the defendants infringed the principle of equal treatment and the prohibition on discrimination, as set out in Article 18 TFEU and in Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the principle of the equality of the Member States before the Treaties, as set out in Article 4(2) TEU, and, to the extent that it has been held to be necessary by the Court of Justice, Article 95(1) TFEU.

Third ground for annulment: The applicant submits that the defendants infringed Article 91(1) TFEU.

Fourth ground for annulment: The applicant submits that the defendants infringed Article 91(2) TFEU and Article 90 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 3(3) TEU and Article 94 TFEU.

Fifth ground for annulment: The applicant submits that the defendants infringed Articles 34 and 35 TFEU, with no justification on the basis of Article 36 TFEU, and Article 58(1) TFEU read in conjunction with Article 91 TFEU or, in the alternative, Article 56 TFEU.

---

(1)  OJ 2020 L 249, p. 49.

---
Major ANDERSON v. STATE

CR-16-0467

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

July 14, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Reh. denied.
Robert Roy HENION, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-1926

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[February 14, 2019]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
O.M., the Mother, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, and Guardian Ad Litem Program, Appellees.

No. 4D18-2842

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[January 10, 2019]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

*Affirmed.*
Arthur A. GENOVESE, III, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-0655

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

February 28, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
UN PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20

- 1983

JONATHAN TORREY DUNCAN

,

Plaintiff

- Appellant

,

v.

CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS, LLC, now known as Wells Path, LLC; JOHN RANCY; ALAN RHOADES; REBEKAH DIXON; AMANDA JENNINGS

,

Defendants

– Appellees

,

and

K. ADAMS; OFFICER ADAMS; OFFICER ADONJI; S. CALDWELL; OFFICER JOHN DOE 4; OFFICER CARTER; NURSE JOHN DOE 1; OFFICER JOHN DOE 5; JOHN DOE 2; JOHN DOE 3; JOHN DOE 6; FORSYTH COUNTY; WILLIAM T. SCHATZMAN; SCHUTT; OFFICER HOMMEL; WENDY HOGAN; A. SWALLIE; K. TURPIN; TWONDA WHITE

,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro

. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge . ( 1:19

- cv

- 00353

- CCE

- JLW )

Submitted : March 23, 2021 Decided: March 26, 2021

Before THACKER

, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.2 Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Jonathan Torrey Duncan , Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM:

Jonathan Torrey Duncan seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the

magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissing 5 of the 18 named defendants in his

civil action . This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291,

and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b);

Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541, 545

- 46 (1949). The order Duncan

seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately prese nted in the materials

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Geology General

Filters

              - science_education(2)
              - science_faqs(32)
              - science_science(43)
              - products_data(30)
              - products_maps(182)
              - products_publications(706)
              - multimedia_audio(154)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(144)
              - multimedia_audio-141767(10)
              - multimedia_image(92)
              - multimedia_image-141769(2)
              - multimedia_image-141771(73)
              - multimedia_image-141772(3)
              - multimedia_image-141774(1)
              - multimedia_image-141775(12)
              - (-)multimedia_image-141776(1)
              - multimedia_video(312)
              - multimedia_video-149194(183)
              - multimedia_video-149195(44)
              - multimedia_video-149196(2)
              - multimedia_video-149197(24)
              - multimedia_video-149198(22)
              - multimedia_video-149225(3)
              - documents_file(5)
              - documents_file-149204(1)
              - documents_file-149213(1)
              - documents_file-149215(1)
              - documents_file-149218(1)
              - documents_file-149219(1)
              - (-)news_news-149249(1)
              - news_newsletters(1)
              - connect_staff_profiles(6)
              - other_basic-42(15)

## By Location

## By Year

Illustrations        January 26, 2015        USGS SIM 3250: Geologic Map of the Agnesi Quadrangle (V–45), Venus

Technical Announcement        April 12, 2016        USGS Continues to Write History
# C_2021217EN.01001703.xml

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/17

---

Appeal brought on 7 December 2020 by Laboratorios Ern, S.A. against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 5 October 2020 in Case T-51/19 Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO — SBS Bilimsel Bio Çözümler (apiheal)

(Case C-667/20 P)

(2021/C 217/26)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Laboratorios Ern, S.A. (represented by: T. González Martínez and R. Guerras Mazón, abogados)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office and SBS Bilimsel Bio Çözümler Sanayi Ve Ticaret AŞ

By order of 18 March 2021, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) ruled that the appeal should not be allowed to proceed and ordered Laboratorios Ern bear its own costs.

---
Airport Planning

*

  September  11, 2013

Airport Planning (RPD 132)

Contract Funds ($K)

TOTALS:

*
Exhibit 1

Exhibit 1 Page 1 of 2
EBIX, INC.

SALES PROCEEDS FLOW - TRANSACTION DETAIL

CLOSING EFFECTIVE DATE: APRIL 1, 2024

Gross Sales Proceeds $ 386,500,000

Estimated Working Capital1 $ 16,751,612

Estimated Deferred Revenue2 $ (17,046,726)

Final Purchase Price $ 386,204,886

Transfer to EbixCash Limited3 $ 7,600,000

Adjustment Escrow Account4 $ 10,000,000

Payment of KEIP Amounts5 $ 2,083,333

Transfer of Jefferies Success Fee to Carve-Out Account6 $ 4,827,561

Segregated Account for Potential Administrative Expenses7 $ 25,000,000

DIP Paydown8 $ 93,834,576

Remaining Sale Proceeds $ 242,859,415

1 Adjustment as contemplated by Section 2.10 of the Stalking Horse APA

2 Adjustment as contemplated by Section 2.10 of the Stalking Horse APA

3 As required by the allocation of purchase price contemplated in Section 2.14 of the Stalking Horse APA

4 Escrow required by Section 2.8 of the Stalking Horse APA

6 Success fee transferred to the Carve-Out Account (as defined in the Final DIP Order) with the consent of the Debtors' DIP Lenders

5 KEIP award approved by Order Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 363 and 503 of the Bankruptcy Code (I) Authorizing the Debtors to Implement Key Employee Incentive Program and Key 

Employee Retention Plan and (II) Granting Related Relief [Docket No. 263]

7 As contemplated in the Debtors' Motion for Entry of an Order (I) Authorizing the Debtors to Use NA L&A Sale Proceeds to Pay Prepetition Secured Claims; (II) Modifying the 

Automatic Stay in Connection Therewith; and (III) Granting Related Relief [Docket No. 484] and consented to by the Debtors' DIP Lenders

8 Payment of drawn funds under DIP Facility, including rolled-up prepetition debt, along with exit fee paid as required by Section 2.11(c) of the Senior Secured Superpriority Debtorin-Possession Credit Agreement, approved in the Final Order (I) Authorizing (A) Postpetition Financing and (B) the Use of Cash Collateral; (II) Granting Liens and Providing 

Superpriority Administrative Expense Claims; (III) Granting Adequate Protection to Prepetition Lenders; (IV) Modifying the Automatic Stay; and (V) Granting Related Relief [Docket 

No. 255] (the "Final DIP Order")

Exhibit 1 Page 2 of 2
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Geology General

Filters

              - science_education(2)
              - science_faqs(32)
              - science_science(43)
              - products_data(30)
              - products_maps(182)
              - products_publications(706)
              - multimedia_audio(154)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(144)
              - multimedia_audio-141767(10)
              - multimedia_image(92)
              - multimedia_image-141769(2)
              - multimedia_image-141771(73)
              - multimedia_image-141772(3)
              - multimedia_image-141774(1)
              - multimedia_image-141775(12)
              - (-)multimedia_image-141776(1)
              - multimedia_video(312)
              - multimedia_video-149194(183)
              - multimedia_video-149195(44)
              - multimedia_video-149196(2)
              - multimedia_video-149197(24)
              - multimedia_video-149198(22)
              - multimedia_video-149225(3)
              - documents_file(5)
              - documents_file-149204(1)
              - documents_file-149213(1)
              - documents_file-149215(1)
              - documents_file-149218(1)
              - documents_file-149219(1)
              - news_news-149249(1)
              - news_newsletters(1)
              - connect_staff_profiles(6)
              - other_basic-42(15)

## By Location

## By Year

Illustrations        January 26, 2015        USGS SIM 3250: Geologic Map of the Agnesi Quadrangle (V–45), Venus
1

The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, United States District

Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.

 2Of the first pair of sentences, one was for Rowett's March 2,

1989 arrest for possession of a controlled substance, and the

second was for his March 29, 1989 arrest for stealing an automobile

and removing/defacing the manufacturer's serial number. Of the

___________

No. 95-2062

___________

United States of America, *

 *

Appellee, *

 * Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

 * Eastern District of Missouri.

Kevin Lee Rowett, *

 * [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: January 5, 1996

 Filed: January 16, 1996 ___________

Before FAGG, LOKEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges. ___________

PER CURIAM.

Kevin Lee Rowett appeals the 240-month sentence imposed by the

district court1 following his guilty plea to two counts of

distributing cocaine base and three counts of distributing cocaine

powder, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2.

Rowett argues first that, in calculating his criminal history

category, the district court erred in finding that neither of two

pairs of prior concurrent sentences,2 were "related cases" under
second pair of sentences, one was for his July 6, 1992 arrest for

driving with a suspended license, and the second was for his

August 31, 1992 arrest for driving with a revoked license.

-2-

U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(a)(2). It is well-settled in this circuit that

"two or more sentences imposed at the same time `are not related

for purposes of § 4A1.2(a)(2) if the cases proceeded to sentencing

under separate docket numbers and there was no formal order of

consolidation.'" United States v. Klein, 13 F.3d 1182, 1185

(8th Cir.) (quoting United States v. McComber, 996 F.2d 946, 947

(8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam)), cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 2722

(1994). Rowett has not shown either pair of cases proceeded to

sentencing under the same docket number or that either pair was

formally consolidated.

Rowett argues next that the district court erred by assessing

one criminal history point for committing the instant offense less

than two years after release from imprisonment. Section 4A1.1(e)

states that one point should be added if "the defendant committed

the instant offense less than two years after release from

imprisonment." Application Note 5 for section 4A1.1 states this

assessment can be based on a defendant's relevant conduct. Because

Rowett's PSR indicated that he was paroled on January 21, 1991, for

the 1989 drug and theft offenses and that his relevant conduct for

the instant offense included distributing cocaine in 1991, we

conclude the district court properly assessed one point under

section 4A1.2(e).

The judgment is affirmed.

A true copy.

Attest:

 CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
EX PARTE Bryan Douglas CANNON

CR-16-0882

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

August 30, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. dismissed.
Ty Esha Maria Mersades KING, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-2440

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed February 12, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.