alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.2

 

Compensation of Darren Parmenter

 

	
Annual Base   Salary:
    	
$335,000   commencing on April 1, 2015, subject to increase in the discretion of   the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors.
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
Bonus:
    	
Mr. Parmenter   is entitled to participate in the Hilltop Holdings Inc. 2012 Annual Incentive   Plan.
Exhibit 10.2


 


Arma Services Inc.

7260 W. Azure Dr Suite 140-928

Las Vegas, NV 89130

USA


 


September 2, 2014


 


Sergey Gandin


 


Tashkentskaya 14/4 , Unit 98, Moscow Russian Federation
109111


 


Dear Sir:


 


Re: Company Services Agreement


 


This
letter will confirm the agreement between Sergey Gandin ("Gandin") and Anna Services, Inc. ("Arma"), whereby
Gandin will provide services of a company Director required by Anna for a fee of $1,000 per month.


 


The term of this Agreement
shall commence immediately and continue for a period of 12 months. Thereafter, this Agreement shall continue on a month-to-month
basis until terminated by either party on one month's written notice.


 


If these terms are acceptable to you, please confirm by
signing in the space provided below. Yours Truly,


 


Anna Services, INC.

Director


 





	PER:	/s/ Sergey Gandin	 
	 	 	 
	SERGEY GANDIN	 



 


AGREED AND CONFIRMED this 1ST day


 


of September
    2, 2014


 





	 	 	/s/ Sergey Gandin
	 	 	SERGEY GANDIN
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2269 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on helium. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 11, 2005 

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on helium. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. HELIUM. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.01.47 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended 

6 by striking ‘‘12/31/2006’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/2008’’. 

7 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

8 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

9 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

10 the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ
Steffany FRAZIER, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 13-6582.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 4, 2013.

*538Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
#### SKINNER v. ERIE R. CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

June 6, 1913.)

Appeal from Trial Term; Orange County. Action by Frances Skinner, as administratrix of John A. Skinner, deceased, against the Erie Railroad Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, and from an order denymg defendant’s motion for a new trial it appeals. Affirmed. John Bright, of Middle-town, for appellant. Rosslyn M Cox of Middletown (Abram F. Servin, of Middletown, on the brief), for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.

JENKS, P. J., and RICH and STAPLETON, JJ., concur.

BURR, J.

I vote to reverse, upon the ground that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. Defendant is not liable unless the “pusher engine” moved forward. All of the direct evidence given by every witness called by the plaintiff or by the defendant is to the effect that it did not move. As against this, plaintiff contends that if the head of the train stopped *exactly*where the witnesses say that it did, and if the pusher engine stopped in the first instance *exactly*where some of the witnesses say it did, and if the body was found *exactly*where Taylor and Cook say that it was, the pusher engine must have moved, since otherwise the rear of the caboose and the front of this engine could not have come in contact. The measurement of distances by witnesses under such circumstances, and the exact location of a body after an accident resulting in death, are circumstances about which witnesses may be both honestly and easily mistaken. On the other hand, the engineer and fireman .and the other employés of the railroad company eould not be mistaken as to whether the engine moved or not. Either it did not move, or they deliberately testified falsely. Positive evidence of a certain character like this, not improbable, and where the witnesses are neither impeached nor their testimony shaken on cross-examination, is not overcome by evidence so uncertain and liable to error as that upon which plain-tiff must depend to sustain her verdict,

THOMAS, J., concurs with BURR, J.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

O’BRIAN OAKLEY,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D22-1793

[September 30, 2022]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Edward H. Merrigan, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 12-11456CF10A.

O’Brian Oakley, Mayo, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GERBER, CONNER and FORST, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### MULSTAY v. CARLIN et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

October 18, 1907.)

Action by Eugene J. Mulstay against Patrick J. Carlin and others.

No opinion. Motion denied, on condition that the appellant have his case ready for argument at the December term. Order filed.
#### SUMNER, Appellant, v. RYAN et al., Respondents.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

May 31, 1913.)

Action by Perrin H. Sumner against Patrick L. Ryan and others.

No opinion. Motion granted, without costs, on condition stated in order. Order filed. See, also, 141 N. Y. Supp. 1148.
EX-10.8



 Exhibit 10.8 

Term Loan Note 
  

			
	 U.S. $10,584,006.20
	 	September 17, 2013

 FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned, RainDance Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation
(“Borrower”), hereby promises to pay to Capital Royalty Partners II – Parallel Fund “B” (Cayman) L.P. or its assigns (the “Lender”) at the Lender’s principal office in 1000 Main
Street, Suite 2500, Houston, TX 77002, in immediately available funds, the aggregate principal sum set forth above, or, if less, the aggregate unpaid principal amount of all Loans made by the Lender pursuant to
Section 2.01 of the Term Loan Agreement, dated as of September 17, 2013 (as amended, restated, supplemented or otherwise modified, renewed, refinanced or replaced, the “Loan
Agreement”), among Borrower, the Lender, the other lenders party thereto and the Subsidiary Guarantors party thereto, on the date or dates specified in the Loan Agreement, together with interest on the principal amount of such Loans
from time to time outstanding thereunder at the rates, and payable in the manner and on the dates, specified in the Loan Agreement.  

This Note is a Note issued pursuant to the terms of Section 2.04 of the Loan Agreement, and this Note and the holder hereof are
entitled to all the benefits and security provided for thereby or referred to therein, to which Loan Agreement reference is hereby made for a statement thereof. All defined terms used in this Note, except terms otherwise defined herein, shall have
the same meaning as in the Loan Agreement. 
 THIS NOTE AND THE RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE PARTIES HEREUNDER SHALL BE GOVERNED BY, AND
CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH, THE LAW OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, INCLUDING SECTION 5-1401 OF THE NEW YORK GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW, AND WITHOUT REGARD TO PRINCIPLES OF CONFLICTS OF LAWS THAT WOULD RESULT IN THE APPLICATION OF THE LAWS OF ANY OTHER
JURISDICTION. 
 FOR PURPOSES OF SECTIONS 1272, 1273 AND 1275 OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1986, AS AMENDED, AND THE RULES AND
REGULATIONS THEREUNDER, THIS NOTE IS BEING ISSUED WITH ORIGINAL ISSUE DISCOUNT; PLEASE CONTACT DAVID KEENE, TITLE: DIRECTOR, FINANCE & CORPORATE CONTROLLER, ADDRESS: 749 MIDDLESEX TURNPIKE, BILLERICA, MA 01821, TELEPHONE:
(978) 495-3353, TO OBTAIN INFORMATION REGARDING THE ISSUE PRICE, THE AMOUNT OF ORIGINAL ISSUE DISCOUNT AND THE YIELD TO MATURITY. 

Borrower hereby waives demand, presentment, protest or notice of any kind hereunder, other than notices provided for in the Loan Documents.
The non-exercise by the holder hereof of any of its rights hereunder in any particular instance shall not constitute a waiver thereof in such particular or any subsequent instance. 

THIS NOTE MAY NOT BE TRANSFERRED EXCEPT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE TERMS OF THE LOAN AGREEMENT. 

 

			
	RAINDANCE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
		
	By	 	/s/ S. Roopom Banerjee
	Name:	 	S. Roopom Banerjee
	Title:	 	President and Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 32


                            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 MB Software  Corporation  on Form
10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof,  I, Scott A. Haire,  Chief  Executive
Officer and principal financial officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  ss. 1350, as adopted  pursuant to ss. 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 result of operations of
         the Company.

December 20, 2005

/S/    Scott A. Haire
Scott A. Haire,
Chairman of the Board,
(Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 20-2668

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Dangelo P. Moore

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield

 ____________

 Submitted: April 2, 2021

Filed: April 7, 2021

[Unpublished]

____________

Before SHEPHERD, MELLOY, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Dangelo Moore appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1 after he

pleaded guilty to drug offenses. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and

1The Honorable Beth Phillips, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the

Western District of Missouri.
has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the

sentence.

Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not impose a

substantively unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455,

461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (sentences are reviewed for substantive reasonableness under

deferential abuse of discretion standard; abuse of discretion occurs when court fails

to consider relevant factor, gives significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor,

or commits clear error of judgment in weighing appropriate factors). The record

establishes that the district court adequately considered the sentencing factors listed

in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See United States v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir.

2014) (on appeal, within-Guidelines-range sentence may be presumed reasonable).

We have also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488

U.S. 75 (1988), and we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we

affirm the judgment, and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________

-2-
| (1) | TheCompany's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended March 31,2018, as filed with the Securities Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the "Report") fully complies, in all material respects,with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and |
|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (2) | Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company for the periods presentedtherein. |
|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                          |   |                   |
|-------------------------------|--------|------------------------|
|                          |   |                   |   |
| Date:  June28, 2018 | By:    | /s/Paul Russo          |   |
|                          |   | PaulRusso              |   |
|                          |   | ChiefExecutive Officer |   |
|                          |   |                   |   |
Exhibit
23.1
 
 Consent of Independent
Registered Public Accounting Firm
 
 
 
 The Board
of Directors:
 Procera  Networks,
Inc.
 Los
Gatos, California
  We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
(No. 333-74026, No. 333-52180, No. 333-42892, No. 333-37196,
No. 333-102944, No. 333-115373, No. 333-130560) on Form S-8
and (No. 333-115374) on Form S-3 of Procera Networks, Inc. of our
reports dated March 24, 2008, with respect to the consolidated balance
sheets of Procera Networks, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2007
and 2006, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’
equity and cash flows for the years ended December 31,2007 and 2006, and the
related financial statement schedule, management’s assessment of the
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of
December 31, 2007, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial
reporting as of December 31, 2007, which reports appear in this
December 31, 2007, annual report on Form 10-K of Procera Networks,
Inc.
  Our
report dated March 24, 2008, on management’s assessment of the
effectiveness of  financial reporting and the effectiveness of
internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2007,
expresses our opinion that Procera Networks, Inc. did not maintain sufficient
control over the closing process and could not prepare its financial statements,
footnotes and 10-K disclosures in a timely fashion, which resulted in last
minute changes and could have resulted in material errors to the financial
statements.
 
 /s/ PMB
Helin Donovan
 San
Francisco, California
 March 24,
2008
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1935 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1935

             To suspend temporarily the duty on Clomazone.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 27, 2005

 Mr. Reynolds introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
             To suspend temporarily the duty on Clomazone.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. CLOMAZONE.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.06.02      2-(2-               Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         Chlorophenyl)meth                                                  31/2008
                         yl-4,4-dimethyl-3-
                         isoxazolidinone
                         (Clomazone) (CAS
                         No. 81777-89-1)
                         (provided for in
                         subheading
                         2934.99.15)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          70,885
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 2,525
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    585,693
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         585,693
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           585,693
<LOANS>                                        911,936
<ALLOWANCE>                                     10,587
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,619,575
<DEPOSITS>                                   1,182,094
<SHORT-TERM>                                   189,491
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             10,065
<LONG-TERM>                                     92,761
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           835
<OTHER-SE>                                     144,329
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               1,619,575
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 58,390
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               27,096
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   403
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                85,889
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              34,410
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              42,659
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           43,230
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    2,910
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 214
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 29,449
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 16,753
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      16,753
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    11,666
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.75
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.75
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.31
<LOANS-NON>                                      4,423
<LOANS-PAST>                                     6,168
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  1,500
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                10,616
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                     3629
<RECOVERIES>                                       690
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               10,587
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            10,587
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
No. 99-40770 -1-

* 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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-40770 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JOHN AARON PRUETT, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 4:98-CR-47-15

-------------------- February 11, 2000 Before REAVLEY, BARKSDALE and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * John Aaron Pruett pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute heroin and cocaine and to the knowing and intentional distribution of heroin “which resulted in the death of the user” in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846. Pruett argues that 21 U.S.C. § 841 is unconstitutional because it lists as sentencing considerations factors which should be substantive elements of the offense. Specifically, Pruett asserts that whether the death

of a user was caused by the drug distribution is more than a mereNo. 99-40770 -2- sentencing consideration. Pruett relies on a recent Supreme Court case which construed the federal carjacking statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2119, as establishing three separate offenses due to its specification of different punishments based on the level of injury suffered by the victim. Jones v. United States , 526 U.S. 227, ___, 119 S. Ct. 1215, 1218-28 (1999). In Jones , the Supreme Court held that increased penalties imposed for increased injury to the victim could only be imposed if the injury were alleged in the indictment and proved at trial. Jones , 119 S.Ct. at 1228. Assuming without deciding, that Pruett is correct in his argument that the level of injury to a victim must be pleaded as part of an offense rather than treated as a mere sentencing factor, the facts of his case are fatal to his claim for relief. The record shows that the indictment did charge him with the death of a user and that he admitted the same both in his plea agreement and in open court. This satisfies the requirement of
Jones , that an offense based on the level of injury to the victim must be pleaded and proved. See Jones , 119 S.Ct. at 1228.
AFFIRMED.
#### PEOPLE, Respondents, v. SHAW, Appellant.

Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

January 11, 1899.)

Proceeding _ by _ the people of the state of New York against William R. Shaw.

No opinion. Judgment of conviction affirmed.