alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Friendly Energy Exhibit 10.05 - Promissory Note


Exhibit 10.05







PROMISSORY NOTE




FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned, Friendly Energy Exploration at 502 North Division Street, Carson City, NV 89703 (the Borrower) promises to pay to order of Donald L. Trapp located at Carson City, NV (the Lender) the principal sum of $106,000, together with interest of 8% per annum from April 1, 2010, all due and payable in one year from the date of this Note.




Borrower shall have the right to repay the principal balance of this Note in whole or in part at any time during the term of this Note without penalty or premium upon the remittance to Lender of all amounts due hereunder.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Borrower has caused this Note to be executed by Friendly Energy Exploration on this date of March 31, 2010.




FRIENDLY ENERGY EXPLORATION




/s/ Douglas B. Tallant_________

By Douglas B. Tallant, 

Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAY-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAY-31-2000
<CASH>                                                4142
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            0
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      4142
<PP&E>                                              111807
<DEPRECIATION>                                        3661
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      112348
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                  100
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             59974
<OTHER-SE>                                           52274
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        112348
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         0
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     17176
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     (17176)
<INCOME-TAX>                                           100
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 (10088)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                        (10088)
<EPS-BASIC>                                         (0.002)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (0.002)



</TABLE>
Slip Op. 03-136

UNITED STATES COURT OF I NTERNATIONAL

TRADE

________________________________________ : 

### U NITED 

### S TATES 

### , : Plaintiff , : v. Court No. 01–00034

: 

### N EW 

### -F ORM 

### M ANUFACTURING 

### C OMPANY 

### , L TD 

### ., : Defendant

. :

________________________________________ JUDGMENT This action having been duly submitted for decision; and the Court, after due deliberation, having rendered a

decis ion herein, imposing a civil penalty of $73,867.36 and awarding Plaintiff interest and costs ( see Slip Op. 03-77, 27 CIT ___ (June 30, 2003) ); and Upon consideration of Plaintiff’s Notice of Filing and Proposed Final Judgment Order, as well as Plaintif

f’s Bill o f Costs Ag ainst

New-Form Manufacturing Company , Ltd., and Position

on the Award of Pre-Judgment I nterest; and In light of Plaintiff’s responses to the questions posed in the Court’s letter of October 15, 2003, as well as Plaintiff’s other representations in the course of the October 20, 2003 teleconfer ence with the Court in this matter; and Noting th e absenc e of any opposition

or other comment b y D efenda

nt; Now, therefore, in conformity with Slip Op. 03-77, it is hereby-2-

ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that Plaintiff r ecove r from Defendant $73,867.36 in penalties; and it is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that Plaintiff recover from Defenda nt $1,612.26 for costs incurred in this matter; and it is further ORDERED, AD JUDGED and DECREED that Defendant pay to Plaintiff post-judgment interest on the sums awarded as penalties and costs, in accorda nce with 28 U.S.C. § 1961, from the date of this Judgment to the date of pay ment; and it is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECRE ED that thi s action be, and it hereby is, dismissed.

___________________________________ Delis sa A. R idgway, J udge

Dated: October 22, 2003 New York, New York
#### In the Matter of George Franco, Petitioner, v Charles A. Kuffner, Respondent.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to prohibit the respondent, a Justice of the Supreme Court, from conducting further proceedings with respect to Richmond County indictment No. 32S/1988, in which the District Attorney of Richmond County has moved to dismiss the proceeding on the ground that the remedy of prohibition does not lie under the facts and circumstances alleged.

Ordered that the motion is granted; and it is further,

Adjudged that the proceeding is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The petitioner was charged in indictment No. 32S/1988, *697along with codefendant Robert Anderson, with, *inter alia,*burglary in the second degree. He contends that he is not a culpable party inasmuch as he lacked the requisite element of intent. His codefendant allegedly stands ready to provide testimony which would exculpate the petitioner provided that separate trials are held. While the petitioner concedes that the denial of a motion for severance is reviewable upon appeal from an ultimate judgment of conviction, the circumstances of his illness related to acquired immune deficiency syndrome are alleged to be sufficiently compelling and extraordinary as to warrant granting the instant application. Alternatively, the petitioner asserts that the Supreme Court, Richmond County, lacks jurisdiction over the instant matter inasmuch as the prosecutor failed to properly instruct the Grand Jury.

The extraordinary remedy of prohibition does not lie as a means of seeking collateral review of an error of law, no matter how egregious, in a pending criminal matter *(see, Matter of Kramer v Rosenberger,*107 AD2d 748, 749). Inasmuch as the petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to this remedy which transcends a question of substantive or procedural law and which could not otherwise be safeguarded through the alternative remedy of appeal *(see, Matter of Lipari v Owens,*70 NY2d 731; *Matter of Rush v Mordue,*68 NY2d 348; *Matter of Molea v Marasco,*64 NY2d 718), the proceeding is dismissed. Mollen, P. J., Mangano, Brown and Harwood, 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 annual report on Form 10-K of Metabolix, Inc. (the "Company") for the year ended
December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we, Richard P. Eno, President, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Executive Officer
of the Company and Joseph D. Hill, Chief Finacial Officer and Principal Financial and Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge that:



This
certification is being provided pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 and is not to be deemed a part of the Report, nor is it to be deemed to be "filed" for any purpose whatsoever.

METABOLIX, INC.March 10, 2011

By:

/s/ RICHARD P. ENO Richard P. Eno President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)March 10, 2011

By:

/s/ JOSEPH D. HILL Joseph D. Hill Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)


---



QuickLinks
### MANDATE



## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 13

- 00785

- CV

In the Interest of Zachary Cardiff Sisk,

an Adult Disabled Child Appealed from the 257th Distr ict Court of Harris County. (Trial Court No.
2012

- 56772). Memorandum o pinion delivered by Justice Boyce. Justices Jamison and Donovan also participating.

TO THE 257TH DISTRICT COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals on October 30 , 2014 , the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment was determined. Our Court of Appeals made its
order in these words: This cause, an appeal by appellant, Zachary Cardiff Sisk, from the order of dismissal in favor of appellees, Leslee Cardiff Sisk and Wallace T. Sisk, signed, June 7, 2013, was heard on the transcript of the record. We have inspected the
record and find error in the order of dismissal. We therefore order the order of
dismissal of the court below REVERSED and REMAND the cause for proceedin gs in accordance with this court’s opinion.
We further order that all costs inc urred by reason of this appeal be paid by appellees, Leslee Cardiff Sisk and Wallace T. Sisk.
We further order this decision certified below for observance. WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court in this behalf and in all things have it duly recognized, obeye d, and executed. WITNESS , the Hon. Kem Thompson Frost, Chief Justice of our Fourteenth Court of Appeals, with the Seal thereof affixed, at the City of Ho uston, August 4, 2015

.
EX-4.2





 Exhibit 4.2 
  






 
 Exhibit 4.2 Genetron Holdings Limited INCORPORATED IN THE CAYMAN ISLANDS UNDER THE COMPANIES LAW (AS
Certificate Number AMENDED OR REVISED FROM TIME TO TIME) Number of Shares [ • ] [ • ] THE AUTHORISED CAPITAL OF THE COMPANY IS USD 50,000.00 DIVIDED INTO 2,500,000,000 ORDINARY SHARES OF PAR VALUE USD 0.00002 EACH THIS CERTIFIES THAT [
• ] OF [ • ] IS THE OWNER OF [ • ] fully paid [ • ] shares of par value USD 0.00002 each IN THE COMPANY [ • ] (the “Company”) transferable on the books of the Company by the holder hereof in person or by a duly
authorised attorney upon surrender of this certificate to the Company. This certificate and the shares represented are issued and shall be held subject to the provisions of the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the Company. EXECUTED on
behalf of the Company this day of Director
The Board of Visitors for the National Fire Academy (NFA) supports the academic stature of the NFA.

Its primary purpose is to:
        - Review NFA programs to ensure they fulfill the basic mission of the U.S. Fire Administration (USFA).
        - Ensure that NFA facilities are adequate for their assigned purposes.
        - Ensure appropriate funding levels for NFA programs.
        - Provide advice and recommendations to the USFA.

Members of the Board of Visitors are professionals selected from the fields of fire safety, fire prevention, education and training, fire control, research and development in fire protection, treatment and rehabilitation of fire victims, local government services management and from other professional organizations to ensure a balanced representation of fire and emergency services interests. Authority for the Board of Visitors comes from Public Law 93-498, the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974.

The Board of Visitors has 2 subcommittees: Professional Development Initiative and National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS).

Learn more about the Board of Visitors’ members and review annual reports and minutes from past meetings.
Exhibit 31.1





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER





I, Rik J. Deitsch, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this report on Form 10KSB/A of Nutra Pharma Corp.;



2.

Based on my knowledge, the 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 the report;



3.

Based  on  my  knowledge,  the financial statements,  and  other  financial information included in the report, fairly present in all material respects the financial  condition,  results  of  operations  and  cash  flows  of  Nutra Pharma Corp. as of, and for, the periods presented in the report;



4.

I am  responsible  for  establishing and maintaining  disclosure  controls  and procedures (as such term is  defined  in Regulation  13a-14  of the Securities  Exchange  Act  of  1934)  for  Nutra Pharma Corp., and have:



(i)

Designed such disclosure  controls  and  procedures  to ensure that material information  relating

to  Nutra Pharma Corp.,  including  its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others

within those entities, particularly  during  the period  in  which  the  periodic  reports  are  being

prepared;



(ii)

Evaluated  the effectiveness  of  Nutra Pharma Corp.'s disclosure controls  and  procedures  as  of

a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of the report ("Evaluation Date"); and



(iii)

Presented in the report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and

procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;



5.

I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation,  to  the Nutra Pharma Corp. auditors and the audit committee of the board  of  directors  (or  persons  fulfilling  the equivalent function):



(i)

All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely

affect Nutra Pharma Corp.'s  ability  to record,  process,  summarize  and report financial data and

have identified for Nutra Pharma Corp.'s  auditors  any  material  weaknesses  in internal controls;

and



(ii)

Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a

significant role in the issuer's internal controls; and



6.

I have indicated in the report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.





Date: May 7, 2004



/s/ Rik J. Deitsch



__________________________

Rik J. Deitsch

Chief Executive Officer and

Chief Financial Officer
#### In the Matter of Mark La Bounty, Petitioner, v Thomas A. Coughlin, III, as Commissioner of the Department of Correctional Services, et al., Respondents.

Yesawich, Jr., J.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Clinton County) to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating a disciplinary rule.

Petitioner, an inmate at Clinton Correctional Facility in Clinton County, violated prison inmate rule 116.12* by allegedly filing six fraudulent overtime slips. Two of these slips bore the signature of a nonexistent correction officer; four were undated and bore illegible signatures. These six fraudulent slips were stapled to two of petitioner’s legitimate overtime slips. While petitioner admits that he completed the overtime slips in question, he claims to have done so as a joke. He testified that perhaps a fellow inmate turned in the slips at a time when he, petitioner, was working in the facility’s kitchen area. At his disciplinary proceeding, the only witness petitioner offered, the head cook, failed to corroborate petitioner’s claim. A guilty determination was affirmed on administrative appeal and this proceeding ensued.

Petitioner’s contention that substantial evidence to support the determination is lacking is unpersuasive. The correction officer who discovered the questionable slips filed the misbehavior report upon which the Hearing Officer, in part, relied. That report, coupled with petitioner’s admission at the hearing that he prepared the false overtime slips, which were submitted together with legitimate overtime slips as one packet, constitutes sufficient evidence to support the administrative determination *(see, Matter of Gibson v Coughlin,*142 AD2d 862, 863).

*982There is, however, merit to petitioner’s assertion that $1.42 was improperly deducted from his account. Respondents bear the burden of proving that, as a result of the spurious overtime slips, $1.42 was wrongfully credited to petitioner’s account (State Administrative Procedure Act § 306 [1]). There is, however, nothing in the record to indicate that this amount was ever credited to petitioner’s account.

Petitioner’s remaining arguments are unsupported by the record.

Determination modified, without costs, by annulling so much thereof as deducted $1.42 from petitioner’s account, and, as so modified, confirmed. Mahoney, P. J., Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., Mercure and Harvey, JJ., concur.

*

 Rule 116.12 provides that "[ijnmates shall not alter, forge, counterfeit or distribute any facility document”.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 7660** 

THOMAS EVERETTE, JR. , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.
REGINA W. PEELE; CREDITED SOLUTIONS; KIM D. SAUNDER; HAROLD G. SELLARS; MECHANICS AND FARMERS BANKS; THOMAS W. KING; THE LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS W. KING; W. DUDLEY WHITLEY, III; SCOTT A. MCKELLAR; DAVID W. GREEN; BATTLE, WINSLOW, SCOTT AND WILEY P.A.; LAWYER MUTUAL; CRYSTAL BROWN; URSULA SHORT; CAROL A. WHITE; EDGECOMBE COUNTY CLERK OF COURT; DENNIS A. COLEY; BRIAN T. COREY; IVORY JOHNSON; JAMES I. KNIGHT; EDGECOMBE COUNTY SHERIFF OFFICE; EDGECOMBE COUNTY ANIMAL; EDGECOMBE COUNTY; JANET WATSON; WATSON PROPERTY CORPORATION; B. C. EASON, JR. , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. Terrence W. Boyle , District Judge. ( 5:14

- cv - 00213

- BO )

Submitted : March 17, 2015 Decided: March 20, 2015

Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges , and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Thomas Everette, Jr. , Appellant Pro Se

.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Thomas Everette , Jr., appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommend ation to dismiss his civil complaint after a 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (2012) review

. Limiting our review to the issues raised in Everette’s objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and his informal brief, see Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841,
845

– 46 (4th Cir. 1985); 4th Cir. R. 34(b), we affirm the
district court’s judgment

. Everette v. Peele , No. 5:14

- cv 00 213

- BO ( E.D.N.C
. Oct. 3, 2014 ). 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
<PAGE>


                                                                      EXHIBIT 21


                             LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF
                        LAZARE KAPLAN INTERNATIONAL INC.


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
         NAME                                                 ORGANIZED UNDER LAWS OF
         ----                                                 -----------------------
<S>                                                                   <C>
         Lazare Kaplan Europe Inc.                                     Delaware
         Lazare Kaplan Belgium, N.V.                                   Belgium
         Lazare Kaplan Japan Inc. (Tokyo Branch)                       Japan
         Pegasus Overseas Ltd.                                         Bahamas
         Pegasus Overseas LLC                                          Delaware
         POCL Bvba                                                     Belgium
         POCL, N.V                                                     Belgium
         Bellataire Diamonds Inc.                                      Delaware
</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Edward Palmer, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Meyerson, J.), rendered October 24, 1983, convicting him of grand larceny in the third degree and assault in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Tomei, J.), of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress a statement made by him to a law enforcement official.

*285Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that he was physically abused by the arresting officers and that the evidence adduced at the suppression hearing warranted a finding by the hearing court that his inculpatory statement subsequently given to one of these officers was involuntary as a matter of law. However, the claim of brutality was contradicted by the testimony of the interrogating detective, to wit, that the defendant was not physically beaten or otherwise mistreated subsequent to his arrest and prior to his interrogation *(see, People v Alver,*111 AD2d 339). The hearing court’s determination that the statement was voluntarily made is supported by the record and should not be disturbed on appeal *(see, People v Gee,*104 AD2d 561).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review and, under the circumstances of this case, need not be reviewed in the interests of justice. Mangano, J. P., Niehoff, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 80 (Wednesday, April 25, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 20817]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-10334]


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

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION


Sunshine Act Meeting

    Pursuant to the provisions of the ``Government in the Sunshine 
Act'' (5 U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that at 2 p.m. on 
Thursday, April 26, 2001, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's 
Board of Directors will meet in closed session, pursuant to sections 
552b(c)(2), (c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8), (c)(9)(A)(ii), (c)(9)(B), and 
(c)(10) of Title 5, United States Code, to consider matters relating to 
the Corporation's corporate, resolution, and supervisory activities.
    The meeting will be held in the Board Room on the sixth floor of 
the FDIC Building located at 550 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC.
    Requests for further information concerning the meeting may be 
directed to Mr. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary of the 
Corporation, at (202) 898-6757.

    Dated: April 20, 2001.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Robert E. Feldman,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-10334 Filed 4-20-01; 5 pm]
BILLING CODE 6714-01