alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ex10-1.htm


    Exhibit
10.1

    


    UNDER THE
SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, AS AMENDED, OR APPLICABLE STATE SECURITIES LAWS, AND IT
MAY NOT BE SOLD, TRANSFERRED OF OTHERWISE DISPOSED OF IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH
REGISTRATION OR ANY EXEMPTION THEREFROM UNDER SAID ACT AND SUCH LAWS AND THE
RESPECTIVE RULES AND REGULATIONS THEREUNDER.

    


    IMAGEWARE
SYSTEMS, INC.

    


    7.0%
Convertible Note due February 14, 2009

    


    $[_______]

    


    November
14, 2008

    


    FOR VALUE
RECEIVED, the undersigned ImageWare Systems, Inc., a corporation organized and
existing under the laws of the State of Delaware (herein called the “Company”),
hereby promises to pay to [___________], or order, the principal sum of
[define amount] ($_______) (with interest on the unpaid balance thereof at the
rate of 7.0% per annum from the date hereof), within three months commencing on
November 14, 2008.   Until the principal hereof shall have become
due and payable, interest will accrue and be added to the
principal.

    


    Payment
of both principal and interest are to be made at the address shown on the
Company’s books or at such other place as the holder hereof shall designate to
the Company in writing, in lawful money of the United States of
America.

    


    In the
event that interest or principal on this Note is not paid when due, then the
principal and accrued interest of the Note may be declared immediately due and
payable by the holder hereof. The Company agrees to pay, and save the holder
hereof harmless against any liability for, any expenses arising in connection
with the enforcement by the holder hereof of any of its rights under this
Note.

    


    This Note
shall be convertible into securities of the Company as follows:

    


    The
principal amount of this Note plus accrued but unpaid interest thereon shall be
convertible, at the option of the holder thereof, at any time after date hereof,
into Common Stock.  The number of shares into which the Note is
convertible shall be calculated by dividing the total outstanding principal and
accrued but unpaid interest by $0.55 (Conversion Price).

    


    The
conversion of this Note into Common Stock shall be effected by the surrender of
this Note, duly endorsed in blank, at the office of the Corporation, with
written notice to the Corporation of the election to convert the same and shall
state therein the name or names in which the securities included in the shares
are to be issued. The Corporation shall, as soon as practicable thereafter,
issue and deliver to such holder certificates of Common Stock into which the
Note was converted.

    


    The
Conversion Price of the Stock shall be subject to adjustment to reflect any
stock splits.

    


    This Note
shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of
California.

    


    


    


    IMAGEWARE  SYSTEMS,
INC.

    


    


    


    By:________________________________

    Wayne
Wetherell, SVP and CFO
Case: 1:03-cr-00933 Document #: 14  Filed: 03/11/04 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:15

Case: 1:03-cr-00933 Document #: 14  Filed: 03/11/04 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:16

Case: 1:03-cr-00933 Document #: 14  Filed: 03/11/04 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:17
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Victoria Weichow, Appellant.

[946 NYS2d 479]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Peck, J.), rendered May 5, 2010, convicting her of rob*884bery in the second degree (three counts), upon her plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, the plea is vacated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for further proceedings in accordance herewith.

As the People correctly concede, the Supreme Court’s failure to advise the defendant at the time of the plea that her sentence would include a period of postrelease supervision prevented her plea from being knowing, voluntary, and intelligent *(see People v Cornell,*16 NY3d 801, 802 [2011]; *People v Hill,*9 NY3d 189, 191 [2007], *cert denied*553 US 1048 [2008]; *People v Louree,*8 NY3d 541, 545-546 [2007]; *People v Catu,*4 NY3d 242, 245 [2005]). Accordingly, the judgment must be reversed, the plea vacated, and the matter remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for further proceedings *(see People v Gibbs,*61 AD3d 699 [2009]; *People v Borrego,*59 AD3d 456 [2009]; *People v Kirksey, 56*AD3d 573 [2008]; *People v Thompson,*47 AD3d 648 [2008]). Angiolillo, J.P., Florio, Belen and Chambers, JJ., concur.
Form of Beneficial Owner Election Form



 Exhibit 4.7 
 FORM OF BENEFICIAL OWNER ELECTION 
 The undersigned acknowledge(s) receipt of your letter and the
enclosed materials referred to therein relating to the offering by Pro-Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”) of subscription rights (the “Rights”) to purchase (i) shares of the
Company’s common stock, par value $0.001 per share and (ii) transferable Series C Common Stock purchase warrants to purchase additional shares of the Common Stock (the “Rights Offering”). 
 With respect to any instructions to exercise (or not to exercise) the Rights, the undersigned acknowledges that this form must be completed and
returned such that it will actually be received by you by 5:00 p.m., New York City time, on December [    ], 2008, the last business day prior to the scheduled expiration date of the Rights Offering of December
[    ], 2008 (which may be extended by the Company in its sole discretion). 
 This will instruct you whether
to exercise Rights to purchase shares of the common stock and warrants distributed with respect to the shares of the common stock held by you for the account of the undersigned, pursuant to the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in the
Prospectus and the related Subscription Rights Certificates. 
 Box 1.  ̈ • Please DO NOT EXERCISE
RIGHTS for shares of common stock and warrants. 
 Box 2.  ̈ • Please EXERCISE RIGHTS for shares of
common stock and warrants as set forth below. 
 The number of Rights for which the undersigned gives instructions for exercise under the
Basic Subscription Rights should not exceed the number of Rights that the undersigned is entitled to exercise. 
  

							
	 	 	 Number of Shares
	 	 Per Share
 Subscription Price
	 	 Payment

				
	 Basic Subscription Rights
	 	[            ] X	 	$[            ] =	 	$             (Line 1)
				
	 Over-Subscription Rights
	 	[            ] X	 	$[            ] =	 	$             (Line 2)
				
		 	Total Payment Required	 		 	$            
		 		 		 	(Sum of Lines 1 and 2 must equal total of amounts in Boxes 3 and 4)

 Box 3.  ̈ • Payment in the following amount is enclosed
$            . 
 Box 4.  ̈ •
Please deduct payment from the following account maintained by you as follows: 
  

	
	 Type of Account:
                                         
                           

	 Account No.:
                                         
                                  

	 Amount to be deducted:            $                     
                        


  

	
	 Signature:
                                         
                                       


	 Name:
                                         
                                         
    

	 Title:
                                         
                                         
      

	 Date:
                    ,2008
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-51381

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

LEVI NAJERA-MORALES, also known as Ruben Morales-Cordova

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:07-CR-1851-ALL

Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Levi Najera-Morales

raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States,

523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty

provision and not a separate criminal offense. United States v. PinedaArrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 872 (2008).

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 4, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-51381

2

The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the

judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 148 (Thursday, August 5, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 42870]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-16760]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2021-0238]


Consolidation of Redundant Coast Guard Boat Stations; Extension 
of Comment Period

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Extension of public comment period.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is extending the deadline for the submission 
of public comments in response to its June 9, 2021 request for comments 
regarding the consolidation of redundant Coast Guard boat stations.

DATES: The deadline for the request for comments published June 9, 
2021, at 86 FR 30612, is extended. Public comments must be submitted no 
later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on September 22, 2021.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2021-0238 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for 
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section in the 
original Request for Comments for further instructions on submitting 
comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about this document 
call or email Todd Aikins, Coast Guard Office of Boat Forces; telephone 
202-372-2463, email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#93e7fcf7f7bde1bdf2faf8fafde0d3e6e0f0f4bdfefaff"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ea9e858e8ec498c48b8381838499aa9f99898dc4878386">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 9, 2021, the Coast Guard published a 
request for comments regarding the consolidation of certain redundant 
Coast Guard boat stations. The Coast Guard solicited comments 
specifically on the consolidation of Stations-Small Scituate, MA; 
Holland, MI; North Superior, MN; and Beach Haven, NJ. The public 
comment period was initially set to expire on August 3, 2021, but due 
to the disruption caused by the global pandemic and requests by local 
partners for additional time, the Coast Guard believes it would be 
beneficial to extend the deadline for public comments to ensure the 
Coast Guard has the benefit of a complete record. The Coast Guard is 
therefore extending the deadline to submit public comments to no later 
than 11:59 Eastern Time on September 22, 2021.
    This notice is issued under authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a).

    Dated: August 2, 2021.
James B. Rush,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Chief, Office of Boat Forces.
[FR Doc. 2021-16760 Filed 8-4-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# Official Journal C 151A/28 A

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 151A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5928 April 2016 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 151A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5928 April 2016

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) |
| 2016/C 151A/1 | Notice of open competition — EPSO/AST/137/16 — Linguistic Assistants (AST 1) for the following languages: Danish (DA), Irish (GA), Croatian (HR), Hungarian (HU), Maltese (MT), Dutch (NL), Slovak (SK), Slovenian (SL) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO)

2016/C 151A/1

Notice of open competition — EPSO/AST/137/16 — Linguistic Assistants (AST 1) for the following languages: Danish (DA), Irish (GA), Croatian (HR), Hungarian (HU), Maltese (MT), Dutch (NL), Slovak (SK), Slovenian (SL)

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
Dismiss and Opinion Filed March 4, 2014 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-01713-CV 

IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF D.L.S. AND P.S. AND IN THE INTEREST 

OF S.S., S.S., AND S.S., MINOR CHILDREN 

On Appeal from the 366th Judicial District Court 

Collin County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 366-56261-2011 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Chief Justice Wright and Justices Lang-Miers and Brown 

Opinion by Chief Justice Wright 

Appellee Father has filed two motions to dismiss this appeal based on appellant Mother’s 

failure to pay for the appellate record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b). Our records reflect that by 

order entered January 24, 2014, Mother was directed to file, no later than February 10, 2014, 

written verification that she had paid or made arrangements to pay for the record. Because 

Mother represented to us in a January 21, 2014 motion that she was not seeking to proceed 

without payment of costs, we cautioned Mother in our January 24th order that failure to provide 

the requested verification could result in dismissal of the appeal without further notice. See id. 

37.3(b). To date, Mother has not provided the requested verification, responded to Father’s 

motion, or otherwise communicated with the Court. Moreover, the district clerk has informed us 
 –2– 

that, “due to non-payment,” the record has not been filed. Accordingly, we grant the motions and 

dismiss the appeal. See id. 37.3(b), 42.3(b), (c). 

 

131713F.P05 

 

/Carolyn Wright/ 

CAROLYN WRIGHT 

CHIEF JUSTICE 
 –3– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE 

OF D.L.S. AND P.S. AND IN THE 

INTEREST OF S.S., S.S., AND S.S., 

MINOR CHILDREN 

No. 05-13-01713-CV 

 On Appeal from the 366th Judicial District 

Court, Collin County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 366-56261-2011. 

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright. 

Justices Lang-Miers and Brown 

participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal. 

 We ORDER that appellee Deion L. Sanders recover his costs, if any, of this appeal from 

appellant Pilar Sanders. 

Judgment entered March 4, 2014 

/Carolyn Wright/ 

CAROLYN WRIGHT 

CHIEF JUSTICE
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Chief Judge Fitzpatrick, Judge Kelsey and Senior Judge Bumgardner 

SOPHIA L. BANKS 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* 

v. Record No. 2466-05-2 PER CURIAM 

 FEBRUARY 28, 2006 

DILLWYN CORRECTIONAL CENTER/ 

 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (Bernice Stafford-Turner, on brief), for appellant. 

 (Robert F. McDonnell, Attorney General; Maureen Riley Matsen, 

Deputy Attorney General; Scott J. Fitzgerald, Senior Assistant 

Attorney General; Donald G. Powers, Senior Assistant Attorney 

General, on brief), for appellee. 

 Sophia L. Banks appeals a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commission finding 

that she failed to prove she sustained an injury by accident arising out of her employment on July 

18, 2004. We have reviewed the record and the commission’s opinion and find that this appeal 

is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the commission in its final 

opinion. See Banks v. Dillwyn Correctional Center/Commonwealth of Virginia, VWC File No. 

219-76-23 (Sept. 9, 2005). We dispense with oral argument and summarily affirm because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process. See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27.1

 Affirmed.

 *

 Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. 

1

 We deny appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal.
<PAGE>


Exhibit 99.2

                            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 Land O'Lakes, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 14, 2002 (the "Report"), I, Daniel Knutson, Chief
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:

    (3) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
        15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

    (4) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
        respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
        Company.



                                                   By  /s/ Daniel Knutson
                                                   -----------------------------
                                                           Daniel Knutson
                                                       Senior Vice President
                                                    and Chief Financial Officer
#### In re HARRISON.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 11, 1907.)

In the matter of the application of Walton Harrison for admission to the bar.

No opinion. Application granted.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

KEVIN D. ROUNER,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 452 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 27th day of December, 2018

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
----

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 11 November 2004

in Case C-467/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart): Inan Cetinkaya v Land Baden-Württemberg (1)

(EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Freedom of movement for workers - Articles 7, first indent, and 14(1) of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council - Right of residence of the child of a Turkish worker after he has attained his majority - Conditions of an expulsion order - Criminal convictions)

(2005/C 6/18)

Language of the case: German

In Case C-467/02: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart (Germany), made by decision of 19 December 2002, received at the Court on 27 December 2002, in the proceedings between Inan Cetinkaya and Land Baden-Württemberg - the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen and N. Colneric, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; M. Múgica Arzamendi, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 November 2004, in which it has ruled:

----

(1) OJ C 70 of 22.3.2003.

----
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 39883

STATE OF IDAHO

,

Plaintiff-Respondent

,

v.

COLE ALEXANDER PIPKIN

,

Defendant-Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2013 Unpublished Opinion No. 555

Filed: June 27, 2013

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho,

Kootenai County. Hon. Lansing L. Haynes , District Judge.

Order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed

.

Sara B. Thomas , State Appellate Public Defender; Sarah E. Tompkins , Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

H on. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen , Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for re spondent.

________________________________________________

Before LANSING, Judge; GRATTON, Judge; and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Cole Alexander Pipkin pled guilty to lewd conduct with a minor under sixteen . Idaho

Code § 18

- 1508 . The district court sentenced Pipkin to a unified term of ten years with four

years determinate, and retained jurisd iction

. Prior to the expiration of the period of retained

jurisdiction, the district court relinquished jurisdiction and ordered Pipkin’s sentence without

reduction. P ipkin filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court denied.

Pipkin appeals asserting that the district court abused its discretion by denying his Rule 35

motion

. A motion for reduction of sentence under I.C.R. 35 is essentially a plea for leniency,

address ed to the sound discretion of the court. State v. Knighton , 143 Idaho 318, 319, 144 P.3d

23, 24 (2006); State v. Gill , 150 Idaho 183, 186, 244 P.3d 1269, 1272 (Ct. App. 2010). In2 presenting a Rule 35 motion, the defendant must show that the sentence is e xcessive in light of

new or additional information subsequently provided to the district court in support of the

motion. State v. Huffman , 144 Idaho 201, 203, 159 P.3d 838, 840 (2007). Upon review of the

record, including any new information submitted wi th Pipkin ’s Rule 35 motion, we conclude no

abuse of discretion has been shown. Therefore, the district court’s order denying Pipkin ’s Rule

35 motion is affirmed.
#### In re Walter F. BEINEKE.

No. 2011-1460.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Jan. 5, 2012.

*454ON MOTION

ORDER

Walter F. Beineke moves for a 31-day extension of time, until January 27, 2012, to file his reply brief.

Upon consideration thereof,

It Is Ordered That:

The motion is granted.