alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ex10-4.htm






  



  







  





ADDENDUM TO MEMBERSHIP PURCHASE AGREEMENT





AND PLAN OF REORGANIZATION





THIS ADDENDUM to the Membership Purchase Agreement and Plan of Reorganization dated June 12, 2009 (the “Agreement”), is entered into by and among Minatura Gold, a Nevada corporation (“MGOL”), Gold Ventures 2008, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company (“GV”), and Flat Holdings, LLC., a Nevada limited
liability company (“Flat”), collectively the Parties, on this 24th day of November, 2009.





As a result of input from Columbian counsel, Columbian accountants, US tax counsel, and US securities counsel, the Parties have restructured the nature of the transactions as described in the original Agreement, to reflect the most efficient manner to resolving technical legal and accounting issues with the intent of retaining the original
material terms of the Agreement. Therefore, the original Agreement and any addendums are hereby terminated as of November 24th, 2009.





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have duly executed this Addendum as of the day and year first above written.










	
Minatura Gold
	  	
Gold Ventures 2008, LLC,

	
A Nevada corporation
	  	
a Nevada limited liability company

	  	  	  
	
By: /S/ Paul Dias
	  	
By: Gold Resources Partners LLC,

	
     Paul Dias, CEO
	  	  
	  	  	
       By: /S/ Paul Dias

	  	  	
             Managing Member, Paul Dias

	  	  	  
	
Flat Holdings, LLC
	  	
By: Flat Holdings, LLC

	
a Nevada limited liability company
	  	  
	  	  	
      By: Managing Member, OGO, Inc.

	
By: OGO, Inc., its Managing Member
	  	  
	  	  	
                  By: /S/ Janis M. Pollo

	
       By: /S/ Janis M. Pollo
	  	
                       Janis M. Pollo, President

	
             Janis M. Pollo, President
Order entered May 7 , 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05 - 12 - 01469 - CV CRESENCIO BASTIDA, Appellant V. ABEL'S MOBILE HOME S ERVICE, INC., ET AL, Appellee s On Appeal from the 199th Judicial District Court Collin Count y, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 199 - 02287 - 06 

### O RDER Before the Court is appellant’s May 2, 2013 unopposed motion for a second extension of time to file appellant’s brief. Appellant’s motion is GRANTED . Appellant’s brief shall be filed on or before June 5, 2013

.
/s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE
**Exhibit 23.1**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the: 1) Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No.333-148503) pertaining to the Sourcefire, Inc. 2007 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, and 2)Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-141396) pertaining to the Sourcefire, Inc. 2002 StockIncentive Plan and 2007 Stock Incentive Plan; of our report dated February 25, 2008, with respectto the consolidated financial statements of Sourcefire, Inc. included in its Annual Report (Form10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2007.              /s/ Ernst & Young LLP         Baltimore, Maryland
Ex. 99.3

                    PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION

     In connection  with the annual  report of A/S  Steamship  Company Torm (the
"Company")  on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended  December 31, 2002,  as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
the  undersigned  Chief  Executive  Officer  of the  Company,  hereby  certifies
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350 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.

     This  certification  is made solely for purpose of 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350,
and not for any other purpose.

June 30, 2003


/s/ Klaus Kjaerulff
-------------------
Klaus Kjaerulff

Chief Executive Officer

03810.0001 #413890
# C_2019363EN.01000401.xml

| 28.10.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 363/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.10.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/4

---

Appeal brought on 13 May 2019 by Wirecard Technologies GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 13 March 2019 in Case T-297/18: Wirecard Technologies GmbH v EUIPO – Striatum Ventures

(Case C-375/19 P)

(2019/C 363/07)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Wirecard Technologies GmbH (represented by: A. Bayer, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Striatum Ventures

By order of 10 September 2019 the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal is not allowed to proceed.

---
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 Health and Human Services

###### Food and Drug Administration

          - [Docket No. FDA-2019-N-4590]

# AGENCY:

Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

# ACTION:

Notice; correction.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is correcting a notice that appeared in the                         **Federal Register**                         of December 2, 2019. The document announced the withdrawal of approval of 21 abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) from multiple applicants, effective January 2, 2020. The document erroneously included ANDA 076709 for Fentanyl Extended-Release Film, 25 micrograms (mcg)/hour (hr), 50 mcg/hr, 75 mcg/hr, 100 mcg/hr, held by Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc., Subsidiary of Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., 577 Chipeta Way, Salt Lake City, UT 84108, and ANDA 077062 for Fentanyl Extended-Release Film, 25 mcg/hr, 50 mcg/hr, 75 mcg/hr, and 100 mcg/hr, held by Mayne Pharma LLC, 1240 Sugg Parkway, Greenville, NC 27834. This correction is being made because FDA previously withdrew the approval of ANDAs 076709 and 077062 in the                         **Federal Register**                         of November 18, 2019. This notice corrects that error.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Martha Nguyen, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 75, Rm. 1676, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-6980,                         *Martha.Nguyen@fda.hhs.gov.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    In the                     **Federal Register**                     of Monday, December 2, 2019, 84 FR 65986, appearing on page 65986 in FR Doc. 2019-25946, the following correction is made:                

On page 65986, in the table, the entries for ANDAs 076709 and 077062 are removed.

Dated: July 6, 2021.

Lauren K. Roth,

Acting Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.

[FR Doc. 2021-14717 Filed 7-9-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
#### Parkview Owners, Inc., et al., Respondents, v DF Restoration, Inc., Respondent, and RSUI Indemnity Company, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

[942 NYS2d 336]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, J.), entered August 26, 2011, which denied defendant RSUI Indemnity Company’s motion for leave to amend its answer, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendant waited more than one year from the date on which it received notice of the claim against its insured to assert a disclaimer based on the policy exclusion for residential projects. This unexplained delay was unreasonable as a matter of law *(see*Insurance Law § 3420 [d]; *Agoado Realty Corp. v United Intl. Ins. Co.,*260 AD2d 112, 118 [1999], *mod on other grounds*95 NY2d 141 [2000]). Thus, although leave to amend a pleading “shall be freely given” (CPLR 3025 [b]), the residential project exclusion “[canjnot be used as an affirmative defense because of its late assertion and the strictures of Insurance Law § 3420 (d)” *(Agoado Realty Corp.,*95 NY2d at 146 n). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Catterson, DeGrasse, Manzanet-Daniels and Román, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
Restated Prior Period Financial Data Schedule to Reflect the Two-for-One Stock
Split Effected February 26, 1999.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           6,831
<SECURITIES>                                    78,881
<RECEIVABLES>                                   27,362
<ALLOWANCES>                                    19,646
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               156,271
<PP&E>                                           9,993
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,806
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 178,423
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          108,267
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            16
<OTHER-SE>                                      50,141
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   178,423
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                16,492
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,348
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,580
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 2,168
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  35
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,529
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,480
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,049
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,049
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.06
        

</TABLE>
#### MAYER, Respondent, v. GOTTLIEB, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

October 25, 1907.)

Action by Rosalynde A. Mayer against William B. Gottlieb. G. C. Weil, for appellant. N. G. Goldberger, for respondent.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Order filed.
Order filed, March 1, 2018

.

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

____________ NO. 01

- 18

- 00083

- CV

ETHAN BRUSHINGHAM , Appellant

V.

AMANDA BRUSHINGHAM , Appellee

On Appeal fr om the 300th District Court Brazoria County, Texas Trial Court Case 94952

- F



### ORDER
The reporter’s record in this case was due 02/09/2018

. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.1.
On 02/15/2018 , this court ordered the court reporter to file the record within 10 days

. The record has not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record has not been filed timely, we issue the following order.

We order Becky Serrato , the official (or substitute) court reporter, to file the record in this appeal , if any, within 10 days of th e date of this order

.No further extension will be entertained absent exceptional circumstances. The

trial and appellate courts are jointly responsible for ensuring that the appellate record is timely filed. Se e Tex. R. App. P. 35.3(c). If the reporte r does not timely file the record as ordered, we will issue an order directing the trial court to conduct a hearing to
determine the reason for the failure to file the record.

PER CURIAM
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

B.T. MANAGEMENT, LLC,

Petitioner

v.

7065

- A WILLIAM PENN HIGHWAY, LLC,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 320 MAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 13th day of September, 2023

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**Certification Pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to**

 

**Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002**

 

I, Joel Boyarski,the Principal Financial Officer of WorldGate Communications, Inc., herebycertify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that (1) the Form 10-Q/A of WorldGateCommunications, Inc., for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2005 (the “Form10-Q/A”), fully complies with requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and (2) theinformation contained in the Form 10-Q/A fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of WorldGateCommunications, Inc.

 

A signed originalof this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided toWorldGate and will be retained by WorldGate and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

 
| Dated: | January 23, 2006 | /s/ JOEL BOYARSKI                                                     |
|--------|------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |             | Joel Boyarski                                                         |
|   |             | Chief Financial Officer  (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) |

 

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4358

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

KING SOLOMON, II, a/k/a Terry Lee Herron,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., 

Senior District Judge. (1:13-cr-00486-JAB-1)

Submitted: November 18, 2014 Decided: December 2, 2014

Before GREGORY and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sophia L. Harvey, LIAO HARVEY PC, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, 

for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, Graham T. 

Green, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM

King Solomon, II, was sentenced to six months of

imprisonment and three years of supervised release for falsely

impersonating a United States government official, in violation 

of 18 U.S.C. § 912 (2012); falsely impersonating a foreign 

diplomat to avoid criminal prosecution, in violation of 18 

U.S.C. § 915 (2012); and falsely impersonating a foreign 

diplomat and acting as such, also in violation of § 915. On 

appeal, Solomon only contends that the district court erred in 

denying his motion for acquittal pursuant to Rule 29 of the 

Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure on the § 915 charges. We 

affirm. 

We review a district court’s denial of a Rule 29 

motion de novo. United States v. Alerre, 430 F.3d 681, 693 (4th 

Cir. 2005). We will affirm if, when the evidence is viewed in 

the light most favorable to the Government, the conviction is 

supported by substantial evidence. United States v. Hickman, 

626 F.3d 756, 762-63 (4th Cir. 2010). “‘Substantial evidence’

is ‘evidence that a reasonable finder of fact could accept as 

adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendant’s 

guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.’” United States v. Green, 599 

F.3d 360, 367 (4th Cir. 2010) (quoting United States v. Burgos, 

94 F.3d 849, 862 (4th Cir. 1996) (en banc)). A defendant 

challenging evidentiary sufficiency “faces a heavy burden,” as 
3

reversal of a conviction is limited to those circumstances in 

which “the prosecution’s failure is clear.” United States v. 

Foster, 507 F.3d 233, 244-45 (4th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation 

marks omitted).

We have reviewed the record and conclude that, viewing 

the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, 

there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that Solomon 

falsely represented himself as a foreign diplomat. Further, we 

reject Solomon’s contention that the Government was required to 

prove that he claimed to represent a specific foreign 

government. Under these circumstances, we conclude that the 

district court did not err in denying Solomon’s Rule 29 motion 

for acquittal on the § 915 charges.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED
#### Steve Michael COX, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Richard FAGLE; Tony Jones, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 10-15507.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 15, 2011.*

Filed July 1, 2011.

Steve Michael Cox, Carson City, NV, pro se.

Timothy Andrews, AGNV-Office of the Nevada Attorney General, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM ***

Steve Michael Cox, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment following a jury trial in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants violated his due process rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of desertion a district court’s evidentiary rulings. *United States v. Tran,*568 F.3d 1156, 1162 (9th Cir.2009). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding Cox’s exhibits because they were irrelevant and contained hearsay. *See*Fed.R.Evid. 401, 402, 802. Cox has waived any argument that the district court abused its discretion by admitting defendants’ exhibits because Cox does not explain on appeal why the exhibits should have been excluded and did not object to them before the district court. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam) (we do not consider matters not distinctly argued in the opening brief); *Marbled Murrelet v. Babbitt,*83 F.3d 1060, 1066 (9th Cir.1996) (“By failing to object to evidence at trial and request a ruling on such an objection, a party waives the right to raise admissibility issues on appeal.”).

Contrary to Cox’s contention, the district court did not abuse its discretion with respect to nonparty witness Daniel Kalisz because Cox did not properly request a subpoena. *See*Fed.R.Civ.P. 45; *Tedder v. Odel,*890 F.2d 210, 211-12 (9th Cir.1989) (per curiam) (28 U.S.C. § 1915 does not *480entitle a plaintiff proceeding in forma pau-peris to a waiver of witness fees for subpoenas).

Cox’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-3626-18T1

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, by the 

DEPARTMENT OF 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

0.232 ACRES OF LAND IN THE 

BOROUGH OF POINT PLEASANT 

BEACH, OCEAN COUNTY, NEW 

JERSEY; DENNIS LAPLANTE and 

CATHERINE LAPLANTE, husband 

and wife, fee owners,

Defendants-Respondents,

and

M&T BANK CORPORATION (as 

successor to HUDSON CITY 

SAVINGS BANK), mortgagee; U.S. 

SMALL BUSINESS

ADMINISTRATION, mortgagee,

Defendants.

Argued November 30, 2020 – Decided 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the 

internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.

December 14, 2020
2

A-3626-18T1

Before Judges Fasciale and Susswein.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law 

Division, Ocean County, Docket No. L-0444-16.

Brian W. Keatts argued the cause for appellant (Rutter 

& Roy, LLP, attorneys; Brian W. Keatts and Heather N. 

Oehlmann, on the briefs).

John H. Buonocore, Jr. argued the cause for 

respondents Dennis and Catherine LaPlante (McKirdy, 

Riskin, Olson & DellaPelle, PC, attorneys; John H. 

Buonocore, Jr., on the brief).

PER CURIAM 

In this condemnation case, plaintiff appeals from a judgment entered after 

a jury trial awarding property owners, Denis and Catherine LaPlante 

(collectively defendants), $330,000 for an easement on their shorefront 

property, which the State had taken for purposes of constructing a protective 

sand dune.

On Saturday, November 28, 2020, the parties settled their dispute and 

notified the court in writing. On November 30, 2020—at oral argument before 

us—counsel reiterated that the case settled and that the pending appeal has been 

withdrawn with prejudice. Therefore, this appeal is dismissed with prejudice 

and without costs.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

CARLOS GUTIERREZ, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D16-4152 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed May 29, 2019. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Manatee County; Hunter W. Carroll, Judge, and Stephen Dakan, Senior Judge. Jason Reid of Carlson & Meissner, Bradenton, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Timothy A. Freeland, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CASANUEVA, VILLANTI, and SMITH, JJ., Concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6778

WILBUR LEON MARTIN, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

CHESAPEAKE CITY JAIL; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-96-468-2)

Submitted: December 2, 1997 Decided: April 20, 1998

Before HAMILTON, Circuit Judge, and HALL and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Wilbur Leon Martin, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 &

Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's

opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. Martin v. Chesapeake City Jail, No. CA-96-468-2 (E.D. Va.

May 27, 1997). Appellant's motion for production of a transcript at

government expense is denied. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

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

DISMISSED