alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
10.2


 


This
loan agreement (this “Agreement”) is made on December 3, 2019 by and between 2490585
Ontario Inc., an Ontario corporation (“Lender”), and Slinger Bag Inc., a Nevada corporation (together with
its affiliates, “Borrower”).


 


Whereas,
Borrower requires an infusion of U.S. $500,000 in cash (the “Loan”) in order to finance its operations and Lender
wishes to provide the Loan, in each case, subject to the terms and on the conditions of this Agreement;


 


Now,
therefore, in consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants and agreements of the Parties hereinafter set forth,
it is hereby agreed by and between the Parties hereto as follows:


 


1.
Loan. Lender hereby agrees to lend $500,000 in immediately available funds to the Borrower by wiring the same in accordance
with instructions to be provided by the Borrower separately. Borrower agrees to accept $500,000 as a loan to be repaid out of
available cash as soon as practicable in the reasonable opinion of both the Lender and the Borrower. The Loan shall bear interest
at a rate of one percent (1%) per month (i.e., 12% per annum) on the outstanding amount until repaid in full. Any payment of cash
to be made by Borrower to Lender shall be applied first to accrued, but unpaid, interest and second to the outstanding principal.


 


2.
Dividends or Distributions. The Parties agree that Borrower shall not be permitted to declare, make or pay any dividend
or distribution unless and until the Loan is repaid in full.


 


3.
Costs and Fees. Each Party will bear its own costs in connection with the entry into this Agreement and any payments to
be made or received hereunder.


 


4.
Amendments and Assignments. This Agreement may not be amended or assigned without the written consent of all Parties.


 


5.
Further Assurances. Each party hereto agrees to execute, on request, all other documents and instruments as the other party
shall reasonably request, and to take any actions, which are reasonably required or desirable to carry out obligations imposed
under, and affect the purposes of, this Agreement.


 


6.
Governing Law and Jurisdiction. This Agreement shall be governed by the substantive law of the State of New York, without
application of any conflict of laws principle that would require the application of the law of any other jurisdiction


 




    	 	 	 



     


    

 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first above written.


 


	Slinger
    Bag Inc.	 
	 	 
	 	 
	Mike
    Ballardie	 
	Chief
    Executive Officer	 
	 	 
	Agreed
    and accepted:	 
	 	 
	2490585
    Ontario Inc.	 
	 	 
	 	 
	[name]	 
	Authorized
    Signatory
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 19 - 0 7 11 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. KARI LYNN DERBY,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including July 20 , 2020 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 15 2020

06/15/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0711
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Khadijah Naadirah Nagi, Appellant.

Mikoll, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schoharie County (Lamont, J.), rendered July 1, 1987, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of scheme to defraud in the first degree, criminal impersonation in the second degree and false advertising.

Defendant was convicted after a joint trial with a codefendant, Michael T. Stevens, of the crimes of scheme to defraud in the first degree, criminal impersonation in the second degree and false advertising. Stevens testified in his own defense and twice referred to defendant’s "extensive criminal history”; one reference implied that defendant had been incarcerated in State prison and the other referred to her previous conviction for forgery. Upon the latter reference, Stevens, who had been admonished by County Court previously not to make such references, was held in contempt by the court. Defendant thereupon moved for a mistrial but her motion was denied. County Court instead gave further curative instructions to the jury. Defendant, citing the necessity to answer the references to her criminal history, thereafter testified in her own defense.

On this appeal defendant argues that the cumulative effect of Stevens’ actions was so prejudicial as to require the grant of her motion for a mistrial and that the failure to grant her motion, despite curative instructions, was reversible error. We disagree.

"While prompt curative instructions will not avoid the necessity of declaring a mistrial where the prejudicial remark *965is of such a magnitude that the defendant’s fundamental right to a fair trial has been violated” *(People v Celeste,*95 AD2d 961, 963), the motion may properly be denied where the prejudice resulting therefrom is capable of being cured *(supra,*at 963). Use of curative instructions is a proper course where such instructions alleviate whatever prejudice may have resulted from the prejudicial testimony *(see, People v Young,*48 NY2d 995; *see also, People v Arce,*42 NY2d 179). The prejudicial remarks should be viewed in the light of the entire testimony to determine whether the defendant was denied a fair trial *(People v Patterson,*83 AD2d 691, 692). Where the curative instructions are viewed as insufficient, the defendant should seek further or more complete instructions from the trial court *(People v Santiago,*52 NY2d 865, 866).

Adequate and prompt curative instructions were provided in this case. County Court characterized Stevens’ challenged remarks as hearsay and directed the jury to disregard them on more than one occasion. Viewing the testimony as a whole in the light of all the curative instructions given to the jury, defendant cannot be said to have been denied a fair trial by the challenged remarks.

Defendant’s implied argument that she was forced to take the stand and give up her right not to testify to refute the effect of Stevens’ references to her prior criminal history is not persuasive. This contention is simply not supported by the record.

Judgment affirmed. Mahoney, P. J., Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., Mercure and Harvey, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM AMB PROPERTY
L.P.'S CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 2000
(UNAUDITED) AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH CONSOLIDATED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          89,094
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   99,870
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               188,964
<PP&E>                                       3,288,333
<DEPRECIATION>                                 120,193
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,656,627
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          128,720
<BONDS>                                      1,262,211
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,965,868
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,656,627
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               110,323
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   69,858
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              20,342
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 40,465
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             34,400
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    30,862
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.34
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.34


</TABLE>
# CE2010285EN.01011201.xml

| 21.10.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 285/112 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.10.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 285/112

---

Tuesday 24 November 2009Statistics on pesticides ***III

P7_TA(2009)0069

European Parliament legislative resolution of 24 November 2009 on the joint text approved by the Conciliation Committee for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning statistics on pesticides (PE-CONS 3676/2009 – C7-0258/2009 – 2006/0258(COD))

2010/C 285 E/18

(Codecision procedure: third reading)

The European Parliament,

The European Parliament

having regard to the joint text approved by the Conciliation Committee (PE-CONS 3676/2009 – C7-0258/2009),

having regard to its position at first reading (1) on the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2006)0778),

1

having regard to its position at second reading (2) on the Council common position (3),

2

3

having regard to the Commission's opinion on Parliament's amendments to the common position (COM(2009)0486),

having regard to Article 251(5) of the EC Treaty,

having regard to Rule 69 of its Rules of Procedure,

having regard to the report of its delegation to the Conciliation Committee (A7-0063/2009),

| 1. | Approves the joint text; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Approves the joint text;

| 2. | Instructs its President to sign the act with the President of the Council pursuant to Article 254(1) of the EC Treaty; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Instructs its President to sign the act with the President of the Council pursuant to Article 254(1) of the EC Treaty;

| 3. | Instructs its Secretary-General to sign the act, once it has been verified that all the procedures have been duly completed, and, in agreement with the Secretary-General of the Council, to arrange for its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Instructs its Secretary-General to sign the act, once it has been verified that all the procedures have been duly completed, and, in agreement with the Secretary-General of the Council, to arrange for its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union;

Official Journal of the European Union

| 4. | Instructs its President to forward this legislative resolution to the Council and the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Instructs its President to forward this legislative resolution to the Council and the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 66 E, 20.3.2009, p. 98.

1

(2)  Texts adopted, 24.4.2009, P6_TA(2009)0318.

2

(3)  OJ C 38 E, 17.2.2009, p. 1.

3

---
- Home
- Careers

# Overview

## Are you ready to defend democracy, to be front and center as history is made, and to be part of something great? As a member of the United States Capitol Police, you will be part of an elite law enforcement agency that offers you a role in protecting the heart of America, every day.

### **BENEFITS**

                  - The USCP Officer salary starts at $77,441 with a maximum annual rate of more than $200,000
                  - The Student Loan Repayment Program has up to $10,000 available for qualified employees per year
                  - Our Officers are provided Department-issued uniforms and equipment
                  - Law enforcement employees are eligible for retirement at 50 years of age with 20 years of service or at any age with 25 or more years of service
                  - 104 hours of sick leave a year
                  - 13 days of annual leave, which increases to 26 days off a year after 15 years of service
                  - The Department's dedicated team of wellness experts provide health and wellness services for employees 24/7
                  - Employee Assistance and Peer Support Programs offer confidential resources to support individual needs
                  - Training for new recruits begins immediately and lasts approximately 30 weeks
                  - In-service and Specialty Training is continuous and ongoing throughout an employee's career

### *Listen to our Officers describe the different USCP career opportunities on our YouTube Channel.*

 

## Careers

              - Overview
              - Career Opportunities
              - Eligibility & Hiring
              - Videos
              - Equity, Diversity & Inclusion
              - Recruiting Team
              - FAQS
HYNES & HOWES INSURANCE COUNSELORS, INC.
                          Notes to Financial Statements
                           September 30, 1996 and 1995


Note 15. Contingent Liability for Recission of Capital Stock Sales:

         Since its inception, the Company has issued and sold 11,222,699 shares
         of its common stock.  Although most of these shares were registered
         with the State of Iowa, none of these shares were registered for sale
         under the federal securities law.  These shares were issued and sold in
         reliance either upon the exemption provided in Section 4 (2) or Section
         3 (a) (11) of the Securities Act of 1933.

         The Company feels that any possible shares and federal contingent
         liabilities that may have existed because of the issuance of securities
         which may not have been exempt from registration under the Securities
         Act of 1933 and unless the subject of an e xisting legal proceeding
         filed appropriately may now be extinguished as a result of the new Iowa
         Uniform Securities Act which became effective on January 1, 1976 under
         Section 613 of that Act, liability must now be ascertained by looking
         to the statute in effect at the time that the stock issue was sold.
         The two year statute of limitations in effect on January 14, 1973, at
         the time of the closing of the issue, has run as have the other
         applicable federal statutes of limitation. As a result, wit h the
         exeption of the Federal and State Tolling Doctrines, possible
         contingent liabilities may no longer exist.

Note 16. Contingent Liability on Pending Litigation:

         On November 2, 1973, in U. S. District Court a Final Judgment of
         permanent Injuction was brought against the Company because of
         complaint filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission.  The
         Injunction enjoins the Company from failing to file timely and proper
         reports as required by Section 12 (a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
         1934.  The Company is currently complying with filing requirements,
         however, it may be subject to subsequent court action and potential
         fine if there are future filing deficiencies.

Note 17: Conflicts of Interest:

         There were directors, officers, and stockholders of Hynes & Howes
         Insurance Counselors, Inc. who had investment interest in other
         affiliated companies.  These affiliated companies provided services to
         each other, they also used common management and provided financial
         assistance as needed.  Consequently, potential conflicts of interest
         exist and may result in either a benefit or a detriment to the
         operations of the Company.
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

                        Consent of Independent Auditors


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 333-67729) pertaining to the Grubb & Ellis Company Deferred Compensation
Plan, the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-73331) pertaining to the
Grubb & Ellis 1998 Stock Option Plan and the 1993 Stock Option Plan for Outside
Directors of Grubb & Ellis Company, the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No.
333-48515) pertaining to the registration of $150,000,000 of debt securities,
preferred stock, common stock, equity warrants and debt warrants, the
Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-42741) pertaining to the Grubb & Ellis
Company 1990 Amended and Restated Stock Option Plan and Grubb & Ellis Employee
Stock Purchase Plan, the Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos. 33-71580, 33-
35640 and 2-98541) pertaining to the 1990 Amended and Restated Stock Option
Plan, as amended, and the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-71484)
pertaining to the 1993 Stock Option Plan for Outside Directors of Grubb & Ellis
Company of our report dated August 23, 1999, with respect to the financial
statements of Grubb & Ellis Company included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K)
for the year ended June 30, 1999.

                                       /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Chicago, Illinois
September 23, 1999
EXHIBIT 32.2
                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

                           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO\
                 13 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 Enviro Voraxial Technology,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Alberto DiBella, Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 13 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.


Date: May 17, 2004


/s/ Alberto DiBella
---------------------------
Alberto DiBella
Principal Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-6654

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

SAMUEL ZUNIGA MEDINA, a/k/a Ghost,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at 

Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, District Judge. (1:16-cr-00051-MR-WCM-2; 1:18-cv00302-MR)

Submitted: August 22, 2019 Decided: August 27, 2019

Before KING and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Samuel Zuniga Medina, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Samuel Zuniga Medina seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on 

his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate 

of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, 

a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that 

the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. 

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must 

demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion 

states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Medina has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the 

appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 10.1

    

    

    SEVENTH AMENDMENT TO

    THE CHF SOLUTIONS, INC.

    NEW-HIRE EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN

    

    

    The CHF Solutions, Inc. New-Hire Equity Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) is hereby amended in the
      following respects, effective December 5, 2019, in accordance with Section 2(b)(vi) of the Plan.

    

    

    The first sentence of Section 3(a) of the Plan is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following sentence:

    

    

    “Subject to the provisions of Section 9 relating to adjustments upon changes in stock, the aggregate number of shares of Common Stock
      that may be issued pursuant to Stock Awards after the Effective Date shall not exceed, in the aggregate, 358,836 shares (the “Share Reserve”).”
<PAGE>



                                                                     EXHIBIT 15
August 6, 2004


Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549

Commissioners:

We are aware that our report dated August 6, 2004 on our review of interim
financial information of W. R. Grace & Co. (the "Company") for the three and six
month periods ended June 30, 2004 and June 30, 2003 and included in the
Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2004
is incorporated by reference in its Registration Statements on Forms S-8 (Nos.
333-37024, 333-49083, 333-49507, 333-49509, 333-49511, 333-49513, 333-49515,
333-49517, 333-49703 and 333-49705).

Very truly yours,



/s/PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
McLean, Virginia