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





 Exhibit 10.1 

CONFIDENTIAL 

FORM OF AMENDMENT TO SUBSCRIPTION AGREEMENT 

This AMENDMENT TO SUBSCRIPTION AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”), dated June __, 2021, is entered into by and between Northern
Star Investment Corp. II, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and the undersigned subscriber (the “Subscriber”). 

WHEREAS, the Company and the Subscriber are parties to that certain Subscription Agreement, dated as of February 21, 2021 (the
“Subscription Agreement”) (capitalized terms used in this Amendment but not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the Subscription Agreement), pursuant to which the Subscriber subscribed for and agreed to
purchase from the Company, and the Company agreed to issue and sell to the Subscriber, shares of Class A Common Stock of the Company; and 

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 11.g of the Subscription Agreement, the Subscription Agreement may be amended pursuant to a written
instrument executed by the Subscriber and the Company; and 
 WHEREAS, the Company and the Subscriber desire to amend the Subscription
Agreement to extend the termination date of the Subscription Agreement. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the mutual
representations, warranties and covenants, and subject to the conditions, herein contained, and intending to be legally bound hereby, the parties hereto hereby agree as follows: 

1. Amendment. Section 9 of the Subscription Agreement is hereby amended by replacing the reference to “June 30, 2021”
with “August 31, 2021”. 
 2. No Other Modifications. Except as expressly set forth herein, the Subscription Agreement
shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect. This Amendment and the Subscription Agreement shall be read together as one agreement, and all references to “this Subscription Agreement” in the Subscription Agreement shall be deemed
to refer to the Subscription Agreement as modified and amended by this Amendment (other than references to the “date of this Agreement” or similar references which shall continue to refer to February 21, 2021). 

3. Miscellaneous. Section 11 of the Subscription Agreement is hereby incorporated into this Amendment mutatis
mutandis. 
 [SIGNATURE PAGES FOLLOW] 












 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed or caused this Amendment to be executed by
its duly authorized representative as of the date set forth below. 
 Name of Subscriber: 

 

			
	
	 
	(Print Name)
		
	By:	 	
	
	 
	(Signature)
	
	
	(Print Name)
	
	
	(Print Title)
		
	Date:	 	 
		 	













 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Northern Star Investment Corp. II has executed or caused this Amendment
to be executed by its duly authorized representative as of the date set forth below. 
  

			
	NORTHERN STAR INVESTMENT CORP. II
		
	By:	 	 
		
	Name:	 	Joanna Coles
		
	Title:	 	Chief Executive Officer
		
	Dated:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Kenneth Wayne MARION, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-50747

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 11, 2011.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Gregory Don Sherwood, Esq., Law Office of Gregory Sherwood, Austin, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before DeMOSS, STEWART, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Kenneth Wayne Marion appeals his conviction for aiding and abetting the manufacture of more than 100 marijuana plants. *See 21*U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 802(15), (22). His girlfriend and codefendant, Bianca Nichole Mancha, pleaded guilty and testified against him.

Marion challenges the sufficiency of the evidence linking him to the manufacture (i.e., growing) of marijuana plants on or about April 14, 2009, the date alleged in the indictment. He argues that the Government’s evidence demonstrated that he may have been on the same property as the marijuana plants between 2007 and May 27, 2008, but there was insufficient evidence that he manufactured (i.e., grew) marijuana on or about April 14, 2009.

In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we view the evidence and the inferences that may be drawn from it in the light most favorable to the verdict, and determine whether a reasonable jury could have found the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt. *Jackson v. Virginia,*443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).

The evidence established that Marion lived in or frequented his trailer at 2905 South County Road 1199, that there was marijuana growing on the property on April 15, 2009, and that the marijuana was planted and watered by Marion and Mancha. From the time Mancha moved out of Marion’s trailer on May 27, 2008 until at least April 14, 2009, Marion and Mancha were smoking marijuana provided by Marion. In addition, Marion was seen at the property up until April 14, 2009, and was still receiving mail at the property on April 14, 2009. On April 14, 2009, Marion knew the police were looking for him and he hid on his father’s property. By September 2009, when police executed a search warrant at 2905 South County Road 1199, it looked as if someone had tried to move out of the trailer in a hurry.

The precise date of the offense was not significant, and the evidence was sufficient to support Marion’s conviction. *See United States v. Tunnell,*667 F.2d 1182, 1186 (5th Cir.1982).

AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
EXHIBIT 31.1 -- CERTIFICATION

         I, Alberto DiBella, certify that:

         I have reviewed this report on Form 10-QSB of Enviro Voraxial
Technology, Inc.;

         1. 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;

         2. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this 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 report;

         3. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

            (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
         disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
         supervision, 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 report is being prepared;

            (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
         controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions
         about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as
         of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
         evaluation; and

            (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
         control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's
         most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in
         the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
         reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal
         control over financial reporting; and

         4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the registrant's auditor and the audit committee of the
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

            (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
         design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which
         are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to
         record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

            (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
         other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's
         internal control over financial reporting.

Date: May 14, 2005

/s/ Alberto DiBella
-------------------
Alberto DiBella
Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 31.1

Certification Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a)

I, J. Michael Edenfield, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Logility, Inc.;

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;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this
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 report;

4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant
and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, 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 report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any
change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation
of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors:

(a)
All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report
financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the
registrants internal control over financial reporting.



|                        |  |  |  |     |  |                         
|----------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | ------------------------
|Date: December 10, 2007 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ J. Michael Edenfield
|                        |  |  |  |     |  | J. Michael Edenfield    
|                        |  |  |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer
#### In the Matter of Pasquale J. Curcio, Appellant, v George Wolf et al., Respondents. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Pasquale J. Curcio, Appellant, v George Wolf et al., Respondents. (Proceeding No. 2.)

.) In consolidated proceedings to invalidate certificates authorizing the designation of Edward P. Romaine, Baloassaro Jenna, Peter Pilsiokos (denominated in the petition as "Peter Pilsiokof’), Joseph Rizzo, *189and George P. Schimpf (denominated in the petition as "George P. Schimp”). Thomas R. Finlay, and Michael A Lo Grande, as candidates in the Conservative Party primary election to be held on September 15, 1987, for the respective public offices of Member of the Suffolk County Legislature (respondents Romaine, Jenna, Pilsiokos, Rizzo, Schimpf and Finlay), and County Executive of Suffolk County (respondent Lo Grande) (proceeding No. 1), and to invalidate certificates authorizing the designation of Louis Boschetti, Irene Pendzick (denominated in the petition as "Mrs. Pendzick”), Dorothy Jermusyk, and John A. Lombardi (denominated in the petition as "Mr. Lombardi”), as candidates in the Conservative Party primary election to be held on September 15, 1987, for the respective public offices of Supervisor of the Town of River-head, Riverhead Town Clerk, Riverhead Town Tax Receiver, and Riverhead Town Councilman (proceeding No. 2), the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Geiler, J.), dated August 5, 1987, which dismissed the petitions.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

In these proceedings the petitioner challenges the validity of certificates of authorization permitting candidates to be designated for nomination on the Conservative Party line. In both cases, he contends, on different grounds, that the committees issuing the certificates of authorization lacked the authority to do so.

Specifically, in proceeding No. 1, the petitioner alleges that the certificates of authorization issued by the Suffolk County Conservative Party Executive Committee were fatally defective because the requisite quorum was not present at the time a vote was taken on the proposed nominations. Although the certificates of authorization were acknowledged by the person who presided over the meeting and purported to act as chairperson of the Executive Committee, that person was not joined as a party to the proceeding.

In proceeding No. 2, the petitioner challenges the credentials of the Town of Riverhead Conservative Party Executive Committee that issued the subject certificates of authorization, but did not join that committee as a party.

Under the circumstances presented in each case, we agree with the court’s determination that the petitions must be dismissed for failure to join parties necessary to the proceedings *(see,*CPLR 1001 [a]; *Matter of Sahler v Callahan,*92 *190AD2d 976, 977). Mollen, P. J., Mangano, Thompson, Lawrence and Sullivan, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            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 report on Form 10-K of Advanced Technologies Group,
Ltd. (the "Company") for the fiscal year ended January 31, 2009 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "report"), the
undersigned, Alex Stelmak, Chief Executive Officer, Chairman of the Board and
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies 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 result of operations of
          the Company.


Date: May 15, 2009
                                           /s/ Alex Stelmak
                                           -----------------------------------
                                           Alex Stelmak
                                           Chief Executive Officer,
                                           Chairman of the Board and
                                           Chief Financial Officer
**EXHIBIT 31.1****CERTIFICATIONS**I, Patrick G. Blanchard, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Georgia-Carolina Bancshares, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b) [paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8618 and 34-52492]c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;andd) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal controls over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; andb) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: November 13, 2007      /s/ Patrick G. Blanchard   Patrick G. Blanchard   President and Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit
3.1 (b)





CERTIFICATE
OF AMENDMENT TO


THE
AMENDED AND RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION OF


ABOVENET,
INC.





AboveNet,
Inc. (the “Corporation”), a corporation organized and existing under and by
virtue of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware, does hereby
certify:





1.           The
name of the Corporation is AboveNet, Inc.





2.           The
Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation is hereby
amended by deleting the first sentence of Article Fourth thereof and inserting
in lieu thereof the following new first sentence of Article Fourth:





FOURTH:    The
total number of shares of all classes of stock which the Corporation shall have
authority to issue is 210,000,000, of which 10,000,000 are to be shares of
preferred stock ("Preferred
Stock"), par value $.01 per share, and 200,000,000 are to be shares of
common stock ("Common
Stock"), par value $.01 per share.





3.           The
foregoing amendment was duly adopted in accordance with the provisions of
Section 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State of
Delaware.





4.           The
foregoing amendment shall be effective upon filing with the Secretary of State
of the State of Delaware.




IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused this certificate to be signed by
Robert Sokota, its Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary, on the
24th day of June, 2010.





ABOVENET,
      INC.By:
              /s/ Robert SokotaRobert
      SokotaSenior
      Vice President, General Counseland
      Secretary
# Office of the Chief Counsel

## Leadership

A. Ashley Tabaddor, USCIS Chief Counsel.

The Office of the Chief Counsel (OCC) was established in accordance with Section 451 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to provide specialized legal advice, opinions, determinations, regulations, and any other assistance to the USCIS Director as an embedded legal program of the DHS Office of the General Counsel.

The Office of the Chief Counsel consists of the following legal divisions:
                    - Headquarters	                       - Adjudications Law Division (ALD)
                      - Refugee and Asylum Division (RALD)
                      - Commercial and Administrative Law Division (CALD)
                      - Regulatory and Verification Law Division (RVLD)
                      - Training and Knowledge Management Division (TKMD)
                      - Ethics Division
                    - Field	                       - Northeastern Law Division (NELD)
                      - Southeastern Law Division (SELD)
                      - Central Law Division (CLD)
                      - Western Law Division (WLD)
                      - Litigation and National Security Coordination Division (LNSCD)
                      - Service Center Law Division (SCLD)

With a highly skilled team of approximately 325 attorneys and support staff nationwide, OCC on a daily basis fields a wide range of inquiries concerning immigrant and nonimmigrant employment and family-based petitions, adjustment of status, adoptions, inadmissibility and waivers, naturalization, asylum and refugee status, contract and administrative matters, labor issues, and records and verification issues. OCC provides comprehensive litigation support to the Department of Justice’s Office of Immigration Litigation and the Offices of the United States Attorney. OCC’s areas of responsibility include providing legal education and training to USCIS staff, and advising USCIS and DHS staff on legislative, regulatory and national security issues.

09/03/2021

0 / 2000To protect your privacy, please do not include any personal information in your feedback. Review our Privacy Policy.
#### Nelson v. The State.

Appeal from Selma City Court.

Tried before tbe Hon. J. W. Mabry.

A. D. Pitts and Chambliss Keith, for appellant.

Charles G. Brown, Attorney-General, for tbe State.

Opinion by

Haralson, J.

The appellant in this case was indicted and tried for murder, was convicted of murder in the first degree, and sentenced to be hung. There was a motion to quash the indictment, and also a plea in abatement which raised the question of the constitutionality of the act of February 24,1887, entitled “An act to amend an act to regulate the drawing and impannelling of petit juries in Dallas county, approved February 14, 1885.” — Acts of 1886-87, p. 209. The, motion to quash and the plea in abatement Avere each cwerruled.

The judgment is reA^ersed and the cause remanded on the authority of *Bates v. State,*118 Ala. 102.