alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 2(b)(vix)





UNSECURED NOTE PAYABLE





CAD $74,555 Toronto, Ontario


March 10, 2015





FOR VALUE RECEIVED, LiveReel Media Corporation (“LiveReel”or the “Borrower”), a Canadian Corporation hereby covenants and promises to pay to Baymount Incorporated (“Baymount” or the “Lender”), in the manner hereinafter provided, the principal sum of seventy-four thousand and five hundred and fifty-five Canadian dollars plus accrued interest (CAD $74,555) (the “Note”).





The Note shall be unsecured and due on demand. The Note will be subject to twelve percent (12%) interest per annum, such interest will accrue monthly and will be added to the principal.




Except as otherwise expressly provided herein, any notice, report or other communication which may be or is required to be given or made pursuant to this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been validly served, given or hand delivered or sent by facsimile, or other electronic communication, or three (3) days after deposit in the mail with Canada Post, with proper first class postage prepaid and addressed to the party to be notified or to such other address as any party hereto may designate for itself by like notice, as follows:





if to the Borrowers, at:





LiveReel Media Corporation


70 York Street


Suite 1610


Toronto, ON


M5J 1S9


Attention:  Ashish Kapoor


Email: a2kapoor@gmail.com





if to the Lender, at:





Baymount Incorporated


1901-130 Adelaide Street West


Toronto, ON


M5H 3P5


Attention:  J. Graham Simmonds


Email: jgrahamsimmonds@gmail.com





This Note is intended as a contract under and shall be construed and enforceable in accordance with the laws of the Province of Ontario, and the laws of Canada applicable therein.








[signature page follows]





1




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Borrower has caused this Note to be executed and delivered by its duly authorized officer as of the date and at the place first above written.








LIVEREEL MEDIA CORPORATION








By: /s/ Ashish Kapoor


Name: Ashish Kapoor


Title: Chief Financial Officer








BAYMOUNT INCORPORATED








By: /s/ J. Graham Simmonds


Name: J. Graham Simmonds


Title: Chief Executive Officer








2
#### Mary A. Byers, Respondent, v Estate of Sidney Tudge, Appellant. (Action No. 1.) Mary A. Byers, Respondent, v Sidney Tudge, Appellant. (Action No. 2.)

—Yesawich, Jr., J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term (Connor, J.), entered June 7, 1985 in Columbia County, which granted plaintiffs motion to consolidate actions Nos. 1 and 2 for trial.

A horse owned by plaintiff and lodged with defendant Sidney Tudge (hereinafter defendant) allegedly fell into a well on defendant’s property and drowned. Monarch Insurance Company of Ohio paid plaintiff $5,000 for her loss and then, as plaintiff’s subrogor, commenced suit (action No. 2) against defendant in that amount. Thereafter, plaintiff, believing her damages from the horse’s death amounted to $150,000, also instituted suit (action No. 1). Defendant then moved to dismiss action No. 1 on the ground that plaintiff had another action pending between the same parties and charged plaintiff with improperly splitting a single cause of action. Special Term disagreed and granted plaintiffs motion to have the two actions consolidated; defendant appeals.

We affirm. Plaintiff’s interest and that of the insurer, though arising out of the same transaction, are distinct and cognizable *(see, Skinner v Klein,*24 AD2d 433). With respect to defendant’s concern that defending against two actions will be unduly cumbersome, that is a circumstance to be resolved by the trial court in the course of the litigation *(see, Chemprene, Inc. v X-Tyal Intl. Corp.,*55 NY2d 900).

Order affirmed, with costs. Main, J. P., Weiss, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Harvey, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Robert Tucker, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard Goldfluss, J.), entered December 14, 1982, which convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, to the crime of attempted robbery in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 160.10) and sentenced him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of from six years to life, is unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of reversing said sentence, vacating the finding that defendant is a persistent violent felony offender, and remanding the matter for resentencing and, except as thus modified, affirmed.

Since, as the People forthrightly concede, defendant committed the second of his violent felony offenses prior to the April 1, 1976 sentence imposed on his first violent felony offense conviction, he could not, under the holding of *People v Morse*(62 NY2d 205), be adjudicated a persistent violent felony offender, at least on' the basis of those two convictions. Accordingly, we vacate said finding and the sentence based thereon and remand for resentence. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Ross, Asch, Bloom and Rosenberger, JJ.
EXHIBIT 31.1

Noble Corporation plc, a company registered under the laws of England and Wales

Noble Corporation, a Cayman Islands company

I, David W.
Williams, certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Noble Corporation plc and Noble Corporation; and
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Based on my knowledge, this 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 report.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: April 30, 2014

| |  |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
| |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | 
| |  | /s/ David W. Williams                                                                                                                                                                                                                         
| |  | David W. Williams Chairman, President and
Chief Executive Officer of Noble Corporation plc, a company registered under the laws of England and Wales, and
President and Chief Executive Officer of Noble Corporation, a
Cayman Islands company
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.                  

###### Department of Commerce

###### National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

# AGENCY:

Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (DOC).

# ACTION:

Notice of renewal of charter.

# SUMMARY:

                        Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), and after consultation with the General Services Administration, the Chief Financial Officer and Assistant Secretary for Administration has determined that renewal of the NOAA Science Advisory Board is in the public interest. The committee has been a successful undertaking and has provided advice to the Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere on strategies for research, education, and application of science to operations and information services. The committee will continue to provide such advice and recommendations in the future. The structure and responsibilities of the                               ( print page 37135)                            Committee are unchanged from when it was originally established in September 1997. The Committee will continue to operate in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dr. Cynthia Decker, Executive Director, SSMC3, Room 11230, 1315 East-West Hwy., Silver Spring, MD 20910; Phone Number: 301-734-1156.

                        Email:                         *Cynthia.Decker@noaa.gov;*                         or visit the NOAA SAB website at                         *http://www.sab.noaa.gov.*

Dated: July 6, 2021.

Eric Locklear,

Acting Chief Financial Officer/CAO, Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

[FR Doc. 2021-14903 Filed 7-13-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-KD-P
#### Richard V. Harnett, Respondent, *v.*Robert E. Westcott, as President, etc., Appellant.

(Argued April 14, 1890;

decided May 6, 1890.)

Appeal from order of the General Term of the Superior Court of the city of New York, made the first Monday of June, 1888, which-affirmed an order denying a motion to set aside a verdict and for a new trial made upon the judge’s minutes.

*669
      *Austen G. Fox*for appellant.

*Ira D. Warren*for respondent.

Agree to affirm; no opinion.

All concur.

Order affirmed.
# C_2019187EN.01003901.xml

| 3.6.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 187/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.6.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 187/39

---

Appeal brought on 22 February 2019 by the European External Action Service against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 13 December 2018 in Case T-537/17 De Loecker v EEAS

(Case C-187/19 P)

(2019/C 187/43)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: European External Action Service (represented by: S. Marquardt, R. Spac, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Stéphane De Loecker

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | Set aside the judgment under appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the judgment under appeal;

| — | Dismiss the originating application as unfounded as regards the application for annulment of the decision of 10 October 2016 to reject the complaint for psychological harassment lodged against the Chief Operating Officer of the EEAS at the time; |
| --- | --- |

—

Dismiss the originating application as unfounded as regards the application for annulment of the decision of 10 October 2016 to reject the complaint for psychological harassment lodged against the Chief Operating Officer of the EEAS at the time;

| — | Order the applicant at first instance to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the applicant at first instance to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appeal is directed against paragraphs 57, 58 and 65 of the judgment under appeal. According to the EEAS, the General Court erred in law in holding, in paragraph 65 of its judgment, that the EEAS had not properly complied with the judgment of 16 December 2015, De Loecker v EEAS (F-34/15) and infringed the applicant’s right to be heard in not hearing him in the context of the analysis prior to the opening of an administrative investigation.

In that context, the EEAS submits that the General Court erred in law in the assessment of the facts of the case, in distorting the procedure followed and in disregarding the fact that the EEAS had heard the applicant in giving him the opportunity to submit any evidence additional to his initial complaint, before submitting the file to the Commission’s services for the purposes of the preliminary investigation.

In addition, the judgment De Loecker v EEAS (F-34/15) was misinterpreted as imposing an obligation on the EEA to hear the applicant already at the preliminary procedure stage (paragraphs 55 to 57 of the judgment under appeal).

Lastly, the EEAS submits that the General Court made an error of assessment as regards the procedure, in applying the conclusions of the judgment of 14 February 2017, Kerstens v Commission (T-270/16 P, cited in paragraph 58 of the judgment under appeal) to the present case. The General Court fails to have regard to the fact that, in the present case, it was a question only of a preliminary analysis, not an administrative investigation.

---
Exhibit 32



SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER



Statement



Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C.§1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, we, the
undersigned Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of Sonic Foundry, Inc. (the Company), hereby certify, based on our knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended
December 31, 2005 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.



Dated: February 13, 2006



|       |  |                         
|------ |  | ------------------------
|By:    |  | /s/ Rimas P. Buinivicius
|By:    |  | Rimas P. Buinivicius    
|Title: |  | Chief Executive Officer 
|       | 
|By:    |  | /s/ Kenneth A. Minor    
|By:    |  | Kenneth A. Minor        
|Title: |  | Chief Financial Officer 



21
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Environmental Microbial & Food Safety Laboratory: Beltsville, MD
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    About Us
                        Mission, Facilities, and Expertise
                                    Five Appropriated Projects
                                    Research Staff (by project group)Search small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




- ARS National Programs
- Search for a scientific manuscript
- Search for a research project
- ARS Software
- Programs and Projects
- Collaborations
- Subjects of Investigation
- Publications

Environmental Transportheadline bar EFT - Download Code
               STWIR - Abstract
               STWIR
               SWAT-BR
               SWAT-BR - Abstract
               CalcPTF
               ASC
               CalcPTF - Abstract
               ASC-Abstract
               SSDA
               MaSTiS
               MaSTiS-Abstract
               APEX-M
               APEX-M - Abstract


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OFINDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

Wehereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statementson Form S-3 (No. 333-         )and Form S-8 (No. 333-31333) of our report dated March 14,2005 relating to the consolidated financial statements, managements assessmentof the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appear in theEon Labs, Inc. Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,2004. We also consent to the reference to us under the heading “SelectedFinancial Data” in this Form 10-K.
| /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP |
|--------------------------------|
| New York, NY                   |
| March 14, 2005            |

 

F-30

----
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Douglas Spivack, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bernstein, J.), rendered March 17, 1982, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of defendant’s motion to suppress his pretrial statements.

Judgment affirmed.

In the instant case the primary issue in finding that defendant freely and voluntarily waived his constitutional rights was one of credibility. Since the hearing court’s findings were not clearly erroneous, they should be upheld *(People v Armstead,*98 AD2d 726). The circumstances in this case do not indicate that the police denied defendant’s parents access to him in an effort to bar the exercise of defendant’s right to counsel *(People v Crimmins,*64 NY2d 1072; *People v Fuschino,*59 NY2d 91; *People v Casassa,*49 NY2d 668, *cert denied*449 US 842; *cf. People v Bevilacqua,*45 NY2d 508). In addition, we have viewed the videotape of defendant’s interrogation by an Assistant District Attorney and find it demonstrated that defendant understood his *Miranda*rights and made a knowing and intelligent waiver of those rights. Under the totality of the circumstances and the rules of appellate review, defendant’s statements were given to the police voluntarily *(see, People v Casassa, supra; People v Anderson,*42 NY2d 35, 38). Lazer, J. P., Gibbons, O’Connor and Brown, JJ., concur.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
  1)
    
    such Annual Report on Form 10-K of the
Company for the twelve months ended
December 31, 2007, fully complies with
the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934; and2)
    
    the information contained in such
Annual Report on Form 10-K of the
Company for the twelve months ended
December 31, 2007, fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of
Plumas Bancorp.
 Date: March 14, 2008
    /s/ Andrew RybackAndrew J. Ryback,Chief Financial Officer
Summary of Imperial Sugar Company Management Incentive Plan



 EXHIBIT 10(e) 
 IMPERIAL SUGAR COMPANY 
 SUMMARY MANAGEMENT INCENTIVE
PLAN 
 The Company has adopted Management Incentive Plan for Fiscal 2009 for executive officers and certain other participants. The plan
provides for cash bonuses based on achievement of a combination of individual performance goals and corporate targets. EBITDA is defined as earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization. The achievement of individual performance
goals and corporate profitability targets results in an incentive payment based on a participant’s bonus opportunity, which is set at a percentage of the participant’s base salary and is based on the participants responsibilities and
position within the Company. 
 Fiscal 2009 Plan 
 A specified portion of the target bonus opportunity is allocated to individual performance goals, which are quantifiable and result in payment only if the individual performance goals are reached and the
remainder of the bonus is allocated to achievement of the corporate targets. The fiscal 2009 plan uses EBITDA, recovery of insurance proceeds from the Port Wentworth refinery accident and Port Wentworth production volume in determining corporate
targets. Twenty-five percent of an officer’s target bonus will be paid when a specific level of the corporate objectives is achieved and that percentage will increase in varying degrees through 100% of target bonus at a specified level of
achievement and a maximum of 200% of target bonus when a higher level of the corporate objectives are achieved.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 21-0165
STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiffand Appellee,
v. IOLA MAERRIEAJOHNSTON,

Defendant and Appellant. L L:1 1 3 MAY 

### 1 0 2022 Bowen Greenwood Cie. , of Supreme Court

rlf 11firIntana ORDER

Counsel for Appellant Iola Maerriea Johnston filed a motion and briefasking to be allowed to withdraw from this appeal on grounds that counsel has been unable to find any nonfrivolous issues to raise on appeal, pursuant to § 46-8-103(2), MCA, and Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). Johnston responded to counsel's brief and objected to counsel's motion. The Court has now independently examinecl the record pursuant to § 46-8-103(2), MCA, andAnders. We have considered the arguments raised by counsel and by Johnston in her response. We conclude no arguments with potential legal merit can be raised in Johnston's case. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED thatthis appeal is DISM1SS'FD. The Clerk is directed to provide copies ofthi., >)rder to all counsel ofrecord and to Johnston personally. kin., DATED this )6 day ofMay, 2022.

* ChiefJustice 05/10/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0165