alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>


                                                            EXHIBIT 10.19

                  SCHEDULE OF OMITTED MANAGEMENT SUBSCRIPTION


     The following documents have been omitted as Exhibits to the
Registration Statement because they are on substantially identical terms as
Exhibit 10.18 in all material respects other than with respect to the numbers
and purchase prices of shares purchased by each of the executives under the
agreements.

<TABLE>
                      Agreement                           # of Shares
     --------------------------------------------         ------------
     <S>                                                  <C>
     1.  Management Subscription Agreements
          between the Company and Edwin P. Kuhn             15,452

     2.  Management Subscription Agreements
          between the Company and Edwin P. Kuhn             11,590

     3.  Management Subscription Agreements
          between the Company and Edwin P. Kuhn             11,590

     4.  Management Subscription Agreements
          between the Company and Edwin P. Kuhn             7,727
</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED April 4, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-60423 Summary Calendar

MARWAN JWEIED ABADI, also known as Mark Abadi Petitioner

v JOHN ASHCROFT, US ATTORNEY GENERAL Respondent

-------------------- Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

A77 449 583

-------------------- Before KING, Chief Judge, and SMITH and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Marwan Jweied Abadi has filed a petition for review of a final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the denial of Abadi’s motion to reopen his removal proceeding. Abadi was ordered removed in absentia on June 1, 1999, when he failed to appear for his removal hearing. Abadi argues that the BIA abused its discretion in light of evidence that he failed to receive notice of the removal hearing.No. 02-60423 -2- He also argues that the BIA’s decision was an abuse of discretion because the lack of notice violated his due process rights. We have reviewed the record and the briefs submitted by the parties and have determined, in view of the substantial evidence that Abadi provided the address to which notice of his removal hearing was mailed, that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen. See Lopez-Gomez v. Ashcroft , 263 F.3d 442, 444 (5th Cir. 2001); Lara v. Trominski , 216 F.3d 487, 496 (5th Cir. 2000). Likewise, because the mailing of notice to the last address provided by Abadi does not violate due process, see United States v. Estrada-Trochez , 66 F.3d 733, 735-36 (5th Cir. 1995), Abadi has not shown an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, Abadi’s petition for review is DENIED.
PETITION DENIED.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 22 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 22

  To prospectively repeal the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military 
                                 Force.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             August 9, 2021

 Mr. Cardin introduced the following joint resolution; which was read 
        twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  To prospectively repeal the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military 
                                 Force.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PROSPECTIVE REPEAL OF 2001 AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY 
              FORCE.

    Effective on the date that is one year after the date of the 
enactment of this joint resolution, the Authorization for Use of 
Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 115 Stat. 224; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) 
is repealed.
                                 <all>
```
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 Tagalder Global Investment, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2006 (the "Report"), I, Chun Ka Tsun, Chief Executive 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 requirement 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 Company's financial position and results of operations.  /s/Chun Ka TsunChun Ka Tsun, Chief Executive Officer May 25, 2007
Mahmoud NASSIROU, Appellant, v. Nellie N'Guessan BORBA, Appellee.

No. 1D18-4304

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 22, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 16

- Filed Under Seal -

Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 285-17 Filed 10/18/18 Page 1 of 1
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 6050** 

FRANK VIGIL , JR. , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,
v. JOHN WALRACH, Assistant Warden; WALTER SWEENY, Unit Manager B

- Building; RANDALL MATHENA, Superintendent and former Warden of ROSP , Defendants

- Appellees
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Roanoke
. Michael F. Urbanski , District Judge. ( 7:15

- cv - 00063

- MFU

- RSB )

Submitted : August 31, 2016 Decided: September 29, 2016

Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and HARRIS , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Frank Vigil, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Mark Rankin Herrin g , Attorney General, Laura Haeberle Cahill, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Frank Vigil, Jr., appeals the district court ’ s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (20 12 ) complaint. We have reviewed th e record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. Vigil v. Walrach , No. 7:15

- cv - 00063

- MFU

- RSB (W.D. Va. Dec. 10, 2015) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
1

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER AMENDING CASE SCHEDULE

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

Plaintiff,

v.

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER AMENDING CASE SCHEDULE

In their December 8, 2017 Supplemental Joint Case Management Statement, ECF No. 378, 

the parties propose competing deadlines related to a refresh document collection and production 

through September 2017. In light of the March 30, 2018 close of fact discovery, the Court sets the 

following deadlines: (1) the deadline for Qualcomm to produce additional documents from 

Messrs. Amon and Kressin is December 14, 2017; (2) the deadline for Qualcomm to produce 

additional documents from Messrs. Jacobs, Mollenkopf, Aberle, and Rogers is December 18, 

2017; and (3) the deadline for Qualcomm to provide privilege logs for all refreshed custodial 

productions is December 21, 2017.

Accordingly, the Court sets the following amended case schedule:

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 389 Filed 12/13/17 Page 1 of 2
2

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER AMENDING CASE SCHEDULE

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Scheduled Event Date

Qualcomm Deadline to Produce Additional Documents 

from Messrs. Amon and Kressin

December 14, 2017

Deadline to Brief Disputes Regarding Third-Party 

Discovery

December 15, 2017

Qualcomm Deadline to Produce Additional Documents 

from Messrs. Jacobs, Mollenkopf, Aberle, and Rogers

December 18, 2017

Deadline to Exchange Privilege Logs December 19, 2017

Qualcomm Deadline to Provide Privilege Logs for 

Refreshed Custodial Productions

December 21, 2017

Deadline to Complete Third-Party Production January 5, 2018

Further Case Management Conference January 24, 2018, at 2:00 p.m.

Close of Fact Discovery March 30, 2018

Plaintiff’s Opening Expert Reports April 20, 2018

Defendant’s Expert Reports May 25, 2018

Plaintiff’s Rebuttal Expert Reports June 22, 2018

Close of Expert Discovery July 20, 2018

Last Day to File Dispositive Motions and Daubert 

Motions

(one per side in the entire case)

August 10, 2018

Summary Judgment and Daubert Oppositions September 10, 2018

Summary Judgment and Daubert Replies September 28, 2018

Hearing on Dispositive Motions October 18, 2018, at 1:30 p.m. 

Final Pretrial Conference December 13, 2018, at 1:30 p.m. 

Bench Trial January 4, 2019, at 9:00 a.m. 

Length of Trial 10 days 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 13, 2017

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 389 Filed 12/13/17 Page 2 of 2
---

Exhibit 32.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Carbiz Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 31, 2009, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Carl
Ritter, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
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.

| | /s/
      Carl Ritter        
| | -----------------------------
| | Carl Ritter                  
| | Chief Executive Officer      
| | (principal executive officer)
| | December 1, 2009             

---
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                        Consent of Independent Auditors
                        -------------------------------


THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
COYOTE SPORTS, INC.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos.
333-48509 and 333-47749) on Forms S-8 of Coyote Sports, Inc. of our report dated
March 23, 1998, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Coyote Sports,
Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1997, and 1996, and the related
consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity (deficit), and cash
flows for the years then ended, which report appears in the December 31, 1997,
annual report on Form 10-KSB of Coyote Sports, Inc.


                                                KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP

Boulder, Colorado
March 26, 1998
Kenneth OSBORNE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-2765

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 5, 2019

Bert Moore, Crestview, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Benjamin Louis Hoffman, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Ray, J.

In this direct appeal, Kenneth Osborne challenges his judgment and sentence for lewd and lascivious conduct and video voyeurism. Osborne pleaded no contest after he unsuccessfully sought to suppress video from a camera obtained during the search of his residence. The trial court adjudicated Osborne guilty on both counts and sentenced him to fifteen years in prison followed by five years of probation. Osborne now challenges the denial of his motions to suppress.

In general, a defendant who pleads guilty or nolo contendere forfeits the right to appeal the judgment entered on the plea. An exception exists when a defendant "expressly reserve[s] the right to appeal a prior dispositive order of the lower tribunal, identifying with particularity the point of law being reserved." Fla. R. App. P. 9.140(b)(2)(A)(i) ; *see also* § 924.051(4), Fla. Stat. (2016) ("If a defendant pleads nolo contendere without expressly reserving the right to appeal a legally dispositive issue, or if a defendant pleads guilty without expressly reserving the right to appeal *282a legally dispositive issue, the defendant may not appeal the judgment or sentence.").

Here, Osborne failed to reserve the right to appeal the trial court's ruling on the motions to suppress, either in the written plea agreement or during his plea colloquy. Further, the State did not stipulate, and the trial court did not determine, that the motions to suppress were dispositive.

Because Osborne gave up the right to challenge the denial of his motions to suppress, we affirm. *See**Leonard v. State* , 760 So. 2d 114, 119 (Fla. 2000) (holding that a district court should summarily affirm "when the court determines that an appeal does not present ... a legally dispositive issue that was expressly reserved for appellate review").

AFFIRMED .

B.L. Thomas, C.J., and Winokur, J., concur.
Artis Cleonce MATTHEWS v. STATE

CR-16-0768

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

January 5, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Reh. denied.
Troy Matthew WELCH, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-1813

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 23, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Belated appeal is granted.
#### Larry NAILOR, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, et al., Appellees.

No. 03-5298.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

May 13, 2004.

Rehearing Denied July 15, 2004.

Larry Nailor, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution, Memphis, TN, pro se.

R. Craig Lawrence, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Washington, DC, for DefendantsAppellees.

Before GINSBURG, Chief Judge, and EDWARDS and SENTELLE, Circuit Judges.

*JUDGMENT*

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed September 30, 2003 be affirmed. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s Rule 60(b) motion, *see Browder v. Director, Department of Corrections of Illinois,*434 U.S. 257, 263 n. 7, 98 S.Ct. 556, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978), as appellant must challenge his criminal conviction through a motion to vacate his sentence filed in the sentencing court under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.
Filed by sedaredgar.com - Canyon Copper Corp. - Exhibit 10.2






CONVERTIBLE PROMISSORY NOTE 

	EXECUTED BY: 	Canyon Copper Corp. (the
      "Borrower") 
	 	 
	IN FAVOUR OF: 	Aton Ventures Fund Ltd. (the
      "Lender") 
	 	 
	PRINCIPAL AMOUNT: 	$250,000 (U.S.) 
	 	 
	DATE OF EXECUTION: 	January 13, 2009 
	 	 
	PLACE OF EXECUTION: 	Vancouver, BC, Canada
  


FOR VALUE RECEIVED the Borrower hereby promises to pay
to or to the order of the Lender on April 12, 2010, the principal sum of
$250,000 (U.S.), together with interest thereon at the rate of 15% per annum,
both before and after maturity from the date hereof. 

The Lender may at its option, at any time prior to April 12,
2010, convert all or any portion of the principal sum into that number of
fully-paid and non-assessable shares of common stock of the Borrower (the
“Conversion Shares”) as shall be equal to the principal sum at a conversion rate
which shall be the lesser of $0.30 U.S. per share or the closing price of the
Borrower’s shares on the Over-the-Counter Bulletin Board on the business day
preceding the date that the Borrower provides notice of conversion hereunder.
Upon exercise of the Lender’s conversion rights hereunder, the Lender shall
receive for no additional consideration one half of a share purchase warrant
(each a “Warrant”) for each Conversion Share issued by the Borrower to the
Lender. Each whole Warrant shall entitle the Lender to purchase one additional
share of the Borrower’s common stock for a period of one year from the date of
issuance, at a price of $0.40 per share. 

The Borrower waives presentment, demand, notice, protest and
notice of dishonour and all other demands and notices in connection with the
delivery, acceptance, performance, default or enforcement of this Promissory
Note. 

The Borrower agrees this Promissory Note may be negotiated,
assigned, discounted, or pledged by the Lender and in every case payment will be
made to the holder of this Promissory Note instead of the Lender upon notice
being given by the holder to the undersigned, and no holder of this Promissory
Note will be affected by the state of accounts between the undersigned and the
Lender or by any equities existing between the undersigned and the Lender and
will be deemed to be a holder in due course and for the value of the Promissory
Note held by him. 

DATED at Vancouver, BC this 13th day of January, 2009. 

CANYON COPPER CORP. 

  by its authorized signatory:

/s/ Kurt Bordian 
________________________________
ex10-12.htm


    
      Exhibit
10.12

       

    

    FIFTH
AMENDMENT TO

    EXECUTIVE
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

    


    THIS FIFTH AMENDMENT TO EXECUTIVE
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this “Fifth Amendment”) is made effective as of the 1st
day of January, 2009, by and between OLD LINE BANK, a Maryland-chartered
commercial bank (the “Bank” or “Employer”) and CHRISTINE RUSH (the
“Employee”).  This Fifth Amendment amends in certain respects that
certain Executive Employment Agreement dated March 31, 2003, between the Bank
and Employee, as amended by that certain First Amendment to Executive Employment
Agreement dated December 31, 2004, the Second Amendment to Employment Agreement
dated as of December 30, 2005, the Third Amendment to Employment Agreement dated
as of January 1, 2007, and the Fourth Amendment to Employment Agreement dated as
of January 1, 2008 (collectively the “Original Agreement”).

     

    1.           Capitalized
Terms.  Capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined
herein shall have the meanings assigned to them in the Original
Agreement.

     

     

    2.           Amendments.  The
Original Agreement is hereby amended by deleting the first sentence of Section
3(A) in its entirety and replacing said sentence with the
following:

     

    


    “The
Employee’s salary under this Agreement shall be $168,400 per annum, payable on a
bi-weekly basis.”

     

    All of
the provisions of the Original Agreement are incorporated herein by reference
and shall remain and continue in full force and effect as amended by this Fifth
Amendment.

     

    


    3.           Counterparts.  This
Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be
considered an original for all purposes but all of which shall together
constitute one and the same instrument.

     

     

    
      
         

      

      
         

        
          

        

      

      
         

      

    

    
 

    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto
have duly executed this Fifth Amendment, under seal, as of January 22, 2009,
effective as of January 1, 2009.

    


    
      	
              WITNESS/ATTEST:

            	
              OLD
      LINE BANK

            	 
      
	 
      	 
      	 
      
	
              /s/
      James W. Cornelsen

            	
              By:   /s/ Charles A. Bongar,
      Jr.

            	
              (SEAL)

            
	 
      	
              Name:
      Charles A. Bongar, Jr.

            	 
      
	 
      	
              Title:
      Chairman of Compensation Committee

            	 
      
	 
      	 
      	 
      
	
              WITNESS:

            	 
      	 
      
	 
      	 
      	 
      
	
              /s/
      James W. Cornelsen

            	
              /s/
      Christine Rush

            	
              (SEAL)

            
	 
      	
              CHRISTINE
      RUSH
Exhibit 32:

Certifications Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934




                                CERTIFICATION OF
                           CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
                             CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                                   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  annual report on Form 10-KSB of Lifespan
Inc. for the year ended  December  31,  2006,  I certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of
2002, to my knowledge, that:

1.   the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Lifespan Inc. for the year ended
     December 31, 2006 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 Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year
     ended December 31, 2006, fairly presents in all material respects, the
     financial condition and results of operations of Lifespan Inc.

                  /s/ Stuart Brame
By:               -----------------------
Name:             Stuart Brame
Title:            CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
Date:             April 12, 2007



                  /s/ Karl Harz
By:               -----------------------
Name:             Karl Harz
Title:            Chief Financial Officer
Date:             April 12, 2007