alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
10.1


 


June
17, 2021


 


To: On Track Innovations Ltd. (the “Company”)


 


Re: Notice of Exercise of Option and Agreement



 


This Notice of Exercise of Option and Letter Agreement
(“Notice and Letter Agreement”) is provided in connection with that Loan Financing Agreement by and among the Company
and the Lenders (as defined therein), dated as of December 9, 2020, as amended as of January 26, 2021 (the “Loan Agreement”).


 


Terms used and not otherwise defined herein shall
have such meaning ascribed to them in the Loan Agreement.


 


The undersigned advises the Company of the following:


 


		1.	The undersigned being the Majority Lender, hereby exercises its right under Section 1.6 of the Loan Agreement,
to extend the Maturity Period.



 


		2.	Pursuant to Section 1.6 of the Loan Agreement, it is hereby agreed that the Maturity Period is extended
until December 17, 2021.



 


		3.	It is further agreed that the interest accrued on the Loan for the 6 month period following the initial
Closing elapsing on June 17, 2021, is equal to US$ 54,849 (the “Interest Debt”).



 


		4.	Whereas Company determined that it is in its best interest, it is therefore further agreed notwithstanding
Section 4.1 of the Loan Agreement, that: (i) payment by Company of the Interest Debt to the Lenders shall be made no later than December
17, 2021, and for the avoidance of doubt, such debt shall remain included in the Secured Amount for all purposes under the Loan Agreement;
(ii) that the Interest Debt shall accrue interest at a rate of 10% per annum; (iii) that Section 5.1(b) of the Loan Agreement exclusively
shall apply in respect of the conversion of the Interest Debt portion of the Secured Amount.



 


		5.	Subject only to the provisions of Sections 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, the Loan Agreement shall continue to
be in effect and apply, in accordance its terms, including without limitation as to the Maturity Period as extended and to the Secured
Amount



 


		6.	If the foregoing is acceptable to you, please indicate your agreement by signing this Notice and Letter
Agreement below.



 


[Signature page follows]


 









     


     


    

 


	Sincerely,	 
	 	 
	Jerry L. Ivy, Jr. Descendants’ Trust	 
	 	 
	Signature:	/s/ Jerry Ivy	 
	By:	Jerry Ivy	 
	Title:	Trustee	 


 


	Agreed: 	 	 
	 	 	 
	On Track Innovations Ltd.	 	 
	 	 	 
	Signature:	/s/ Yehuda Holtzman	 	Signature:	/s/ Assaf Cohen
	By:	Yehuda Holtzman	 	By:	Assaf Cohen
	Title:	Chief Executive Officer	 	Title:	Chief Financial Officer


 


	 	Cc:	Scott Medford
	 		Mark R. Beatty, Esq.
	 		Yoram Shiv, Adv. 
	 		Dalit Kahana-Garbi, Adv. 
	 		Yael Sender, Adv.
2005 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

7-12-2005

USA v. Branch

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 04-2160

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2005 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"USA v. Branch" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 871.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/871
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

____________

No. 04-2160

____________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

 v.

TERRANCE BRANCH,

 Appellant

 ____________

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the District of Delaware

D.C. No.: 03-cr-00011 

District Judge: Honorable Gregory M. Sleet

____________

Argued December 13, 2004

Decided January 20, 2005

Certiorari Granted May 16, 2005

Judgment Vacated and Remanded from the 

Supreme Court of the United States

May 24, 2005

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) July 8, 2005

____________

Before: *NYGAARD, BECKER, and ROSENN, Circuit Judges.

(Filed: July 12, 2005)

____________
2

OPINION OF THE COURT

____________

ROSENN, Circuit Judge.

Appellant Terrance Branch was convicted of possessing a firearm in violation of

18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. He

was tried by jury and subsequently sentenced to 120 months in prison. Branch timely

appealed his conviction to this Court, but did not challenge his sentence. 

We affirmed his conviction in United States v. Branch, No. 04-2160, slip op. at 4

(3d Cir. Jan. 20, 2005). The Supreme Court granted certiorari. In Branch v. United

States, 125 S. Ct. 2281 (2005), the Supreme Court vacated the judgment and remanded

for further consideration in light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. -- (2005).

After further consideration, we reaffirm the District Court’s judgment of

conviction for the reasons set forth in our opinion of January 20, 2005. However, in light

of Booker, the appellant’s sentence must be reviewed and its appropriateness ascertained. 

Because we believe that this is best determined by the District Court in the first instance,

we will vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing in accordance with Booker.

United States v. Davis, 407 F.3d 162, 165 (3d Cir. 2005) (en banc).

*The Honorable Judge Richard L. Nygaard assumed senior status on July 9, 2005.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 569 

To amend titles 28 and 10, United States Code, to allow for certiorari 

review of certain cases denied relief or review by the United States 

Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 15, 2009 

Mrs. DAVIS of California (for herself, Mr. SKELTON, Mr. HOLT, Ms. 

BORDALLO, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. LOEBSACK, Mr. HINCHEY, Ms. WOOLSEY, and Mr. SCOTT of Virginia) introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend titles 28 and 10, United States Code, to allow 

for certiorari review of certain cases denied relief or 

review by the United States Court of Appeals for the 

Armed Forces. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Equal Justice for Our 

5 Military Act of 2009’’. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
2 

•HR 569 IH

1 SEC. 2. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF AP2 PEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1259 of title 28, United 

4 States Code, is amended— 

5 (1) in paragraph (3), by inserting ‘‘or denied’’ 

6 after ‘‘granted’’; and 

7 (2) in paragraph (4), by inserting ‘‘or denied’’ 

8 after ‘‘granted’’. 

9 (b) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENT.— 

10 Section 867a(a) of title 10, United States Code, is amend11 ed by striking ‘‘The Supreme Court may not review by 

12 a writ of certiorari under this section any action of the 

13 Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces in refusing to 

14 grant a petition for review.’’. 

Æ 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee, v. Joseph S. GARCIA, Airman Basic, U. S. Air Force, Appellant.

No. 30,183.

U. S. Court of Military Appeals.

July 11, 1975.

*Colonel William E. Cordingly*and *Captain Byron D. Baur*were on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Colonel C. F. Bennett*and *Captain Frederick P. Waite*were on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

*78OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

Upon conviction by a special court-martial for an unauthorized absence and forgery in violation of Articles 86 and 123, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 886 and 923, the appellant was sentenced by the military judge hearing the case to a bad-conduct discharge and confinement at hard labor for 4 months. In his review of the case at the supervisory authority level, the staff judge advocate erroneously stated that the appellant was convicted of the unauthorized absence upon his plea of guilty. Because the appellant had actually pleaded not guilty to that offense, such erroneous advice constitutes prejudicial error. *United States*v. *McIlveen,*23 U.S.C.M.A. 357, 49 C.M.R. 761 (1975).

The decision of the U. S. Air Force Court of Military Review is reversed. The case is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Air Force for submission to the Court of Military Review, which may set aside the findings of guilty on that specification and reassess the sentence or order a new review and action.
# FILED
Sep te mb er 1 3, 19 95 Cec il Crow son , Jr . Ap p e l l a te C o u rt C l e rk I N THE C OU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PEALS OF TENN ESSEE

ATJACKSON F EBR UA RY

SES SION , 199 5 STATE OF TENN ESSEE , ) ) Appel lee , ) No. 02C 01- 9410- CR -0 0217

) ) Shel by

C ounty v . ) ) Ho n . J o se p h B. McCa rt ie , J u d ge ) MI CHA EL RIC HMO ND, ) (S e n te n cin g) ) Appel lan t. )

CO NC UR RI NG OPI NI ON

I c oncur w it h the resul ts re ached i n the maj or ity opi nio n, bu t I q uest ion the nee d for the a nalysis it make s. Unquestiona bly, a com mu nity correction s sente nce does not n eces sar il y

i nv olve ei ther

probati on or

a s uspen ded s entenc e. Howev er , altho ugh notraised by the parties, the rea l issue in this case is one thatthis court
re cent ly resol v ed, rela ti v e to w hether or not the C ri minal Sent enci ng R eform Act of 1 9 8 9 su p e rs e d e s t h e se n t e n c in g p ro vis io n so f T

. C. A

. § 5 5 -1 0 -6 1 6 (c ) s o a s t o a ll o w a t ri a l c o u rtt o su s p e n d a ll o r p a rto f a m o t o r ve h ic le o f

fe n d e r' s se n t e n c e . In S t a t e v. Ricky Fife , No. 03C0 1-94 01-CR-000 36, Bloun t Co. (Te nn. Cri m. App. June 15, 19 95), this cou rt held th at th e Reform Actsupe rsede s the forme r prov ision an d tha t all or part of a motor

v ehi cl e offender'sfelony se ntenc e c oul d be sus pended pursuantto T.C. A. § 40- 35- 303( a)

. It re li ed upon the re asoni ng i n St ate v . H ic ks , 848 S.W .2d 6 9 ( Tenn. Cr im. App. 1992) , i n w hic h thi s cour t reache d a s imi lar

resul t rela ti v e to the o ffense of dr iv ing on a rev oked li cens e. I ag re e w it h thi s cour t' s p osi ti on i n F ife. Thus, both prob ation and comm unity correction sen ten ces are available for the trial cou rt's
cons ide ra ti on i n thi s c ase.

_________ _________

_________

__ Jo se p h M. T ip to n , J u d ge
Exhibit 31.2


                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Timothy B. Murphy, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Investors Capital
     Holdings, Ltd.;
2.   Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;
3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
     information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all
     material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash
     flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
     quarterly report;
4.   The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
     establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
     in Exchange Act Rules 13(a)-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we
     have:
     a)   designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
          material information relating to the registrant, including its
          consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
          entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly
          report is being prepared;
     b)   evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
          and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of
          this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and
     c)   presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
          effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
          evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5.   The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on
     our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit
     committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the
     equivalent function):
     a)   all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
          controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
          record, process, summarize and report financial data and have
          identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in
          internal controls; and
     b)   any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
          employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
          controls.

Date: November 14, 2003


By: /s/ TIMOTHY B. MURPHY
-----------------------------
Timothy B. Murphy
Chief Financial Officer
(Principle Financial Officer)
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HARCHARAN SINGH,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 07-73605

Agency No. A047-659-172

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 8, 2011** 

Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. 

Harcharan Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s

(“IJ”) decisions affirming the agency’s termination of Singh’s conditional

residency status and denying Singh’s application for asylum and withholding of

FILED

MAR 30 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 07-73605

removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial

evidence, Damon v. Ashcroft, 360 F.3d 1084, 1088 (9th Cir. 2004), and we deny

the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Singh’s conditional

residency status was properly terminated and Singh was subject to removal, see 8

U.S.C. § 1186a, where Singh’s citizen-spouse disclosed she divorced her husband

to marry Singh, her ex-husband’s brother, for immigration purposes, and the

marriage was not consummated. See Damon, 360 F.3d at 1089 (test for a bona fide

marriage is whether the couple intended to establish a life together at the time they

were married); see also Bark v. INS, 511 F.2d 1200, 1201-02 (9th Cir. 1975)

(conduct of parties after marriage is relevant to show intent at time of marriage). 

In addition, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Singh’s

experiences in India, including one detention and mistreatment by Indian police,

did not constitute persecution. See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1019-21 (9th

Cir. 2006). Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s determination that Singh

failed to establish he has a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Nahrvani

v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2005) (evidence did not compel finding

that petitioner’s fear of future persecution was objectively reasonable). 

Accordingly, Singh’s asylum claim fails.
3 07-73605

 Because Singh failed to demonstrate eligibility for asylum, he did not

satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v.

Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
# C o urt o f A ppe a ls

o f th e S ta te o f G e o rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A2 4 A1 62 7 . J AMES L. W RI GHT v . THE STATE.

I n 201 8, J ames L. W right p led gu ilty to aggrav ated assau lt and other c r imes. I n

2024, he f iled mo tio ns to v ac ate his c o nv ic tio ns and s entenc e. On Febru ary 7

, 2024,

the trial c o u rt e ntered an o rd er d enying a nd d ismissing t he mo tio ns. On M arc h 22,

2024, W right f

iled a no tic e o f d i r e c t a p p eal to the Su p reme Co u rt. 1 That Co urt

transf erred the matter here u p o n f ind ing no basis f

o r ju risd ic t io n there. See Case N o.

S24A 0 881 (M ay 1 4, 2024). W e also lac k j u risd ic tio n.

Pretermitting w hether W right had a right o f d irec t a p p eal f ro m the t rial c o u rt’ s

o rd er, his no tic e o f ap p eal was no t timely f iled

. A no tic e of a p p eal mu st be f iled w ithin

30 da y s af

ter entry o f the o rd er o n ap p eal. See OCGA § 5- 6

- 38 (a). The p ro p er and

timely f iling o f a no tic e o f ap p eal is an abso lu te requ irement t o c o nf er j u risd ic tio n o n

an a p p ellate c o u r t

. Redfo rd v. S ta te

, 357 G a

. A p p

. 247

, 250 (850 SE2d 44 7 ) (2020).

W right f iled his no t ic e o f ap p e a l 44 d ays af ter entry o f the o rd e r he s eek s to ap p eal.

A c c o rd ingly, w e lac k j u risd ic tio n to c onsid er this ap p eal, w hic h is here b y

D I SM I SSED

.

1 W right also f

iled an ap plic atio n f

o r disc r etio nary ap peal in the Su p reme Co u rt,

w hic h t ransf

erred that matter to u s. W e d i s m i s s e d the ap p lic atio n f o r lac k o f

j u risd ic tio n. See Case N o

. A 24D 0326 (M ay 1 6 , 2024). July 03, 2024C o u r t o f A p p e a ls o f t h e S t a t e o f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O ffic e , A t la n t a ,

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

I c e r t ify t h a t t h e a b o v e is a t

r u e e x t r a c t fr o m

t h e m in u t e s o f t h e C o u r t o f A pp e a ls o f G e o r g ia

.

W it n e s s m y s ig n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o f s a id c o u r t

h e r e t o a ffix e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r la s t a b o v e w r

it t e n

.

, C le r

k

. 07/03/2024
#### Margaret J. Sansone, Individually and as Mother and Natural Guardian of James Jordan, Appellant, v James A. Lake et al., Respondents, and Paul K. Donohue et al., Appellants. Paul K. Donohue, Appellant, v James A. Lake et al., Respondents. (And a Third-Party Action and Another Action.)

(Appeal No. 2.)

Present— Denman, J. P., Boomer, Green, Pine and Balio, JJ.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-11330

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSE PORTILLO-MEZA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:12-CR-205-1

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Portillo-Meza appeals his conviction for illegally reentering the 

United States after removal. He urges that the district court erred in not 

allowing him to present a necessity or duress defense. He has not shown that 

he satisfied the requirements for such a defense. See United States v. PosadaRios, 158 F.3d 832, 873 (5th Cir. 1998); United States v. Gant, 691 F.2d 1159, 

1162-65 (5th Cir. 1982).

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 17, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-11330 Document: 00512772259 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/17/2014
No. 13-11330

Additionally, Portillo-Meza theorizes that excluding such a defense can 

result in an inconsistency between a criminal case and an immigration case. 

He has shown no error.

AFFIRMED.

2

 Case: 13-11330 Document: 00512772259 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/17/2014
# C_2021459EN.01002201.xml

| 12.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 459/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 459/22

---

EUROPEAN INSURANCE AND OCCUPATIONAL PENSIONS AUTHORITY

Publication of the final accounts for the financial year 2020

(2021/C 459/22)

The complete version of the final accounts may be found at the following address:

https://www.eiopa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/publications/administrative/financial_statement_for_2020.pdf

---
Exhibit 99.1

                     Form of Section 906 Certification
                CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                                    AND
                  CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                     PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

     In connection with the Annual Report of Cygni Investments, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2002 (the
"Report"), I, Carl Suter, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, hereby 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 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 T. Suter
                                   Carl T. Suter
                                   Chief Executive Officer and
                                   Chief Financial Officer
                                   Date:  March 27, 2003
#### People ex rel. Nathan Lewis, Appellant, v Harold D. Graham, Superintendent, Auburn Correctional Facility, Respondent.

[945 NYS2d 903]

Appeal from a judgment (denominated order) of the Supreme Court, Cayuga County (Thomas G. Leone, A.J.), entered March 7, 2011 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70. The judgment granted the motion of respondent to dismiss and dismissed the petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this proceeding seeking a writ of habeas corpus. We conclude that Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition. Habeas corpus relief is unavailable because petitioner’s contention in support of the petition “could have been, or [was], raised on direct appeal or by a motion pursuant to CPL article 440” *(People ex rel. Mills v Poole,*55 AD3d 1289, 1290 [2008], *lv denied*11 NY3d 712 [2008]; see *People ex rel. Robinson v Graham,*68 AD3d 1706 [2009], *lv denied*14 NY3d 706 [2010]). “Habeas corpus relief also is unavailable because petitioner would not be entitled to immediate release from custody even in the event that his contention [ ] had merit” *(People ex rel. Almodovar v Berbary,*67 AD3d 1419, 1420 [2009], *lv denied*14 NY3d 703 [2010]; *see People ex rel. Kaplan v Commissioner of Correction of City of N.Y.,*60 NY2d 648, 649 [1983]). Finally, “[b]ecause the petition lacked any justiciable basis upon which a writ of habeas corpus could be sustained, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner’s application for assigned counsel” *(People ex rel. Gloss v Costello,*309 AD2d 1160, 1161 [2003], *lv denied*1 NY3d 504 [2003] [internal quotation marks omitted]; *see People ex rel. Hinton v Graham,*66 AD3d 1402, 1402 [2009], *lv denied*13 NY3d 934 [2010], *rearg denied*14 NY3d 795 [2010]). Present—Centra, J.P., Fahey, Peradotto, Carni and Sconiers, JJ.