alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
bdco_ex101.htm


Exhibit 10.1


 



THIRD AMENDMENT TO PROMISSORY NOTE


 


This THIRD AMENDMENT TO PROMISSORY NOTE (the "Amendment") by and between Lazarus Energy, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("Maker") and. John H. Kissick ("Payee") is made effective as of October 1, 2015 (the "Effective Date") The Maker and the Payee shall be referenced individually as a "Party" and collectively and "Parties".







WHEREAS, the Maker and the Payee are Parties to that certain Promissory Note dated June 1, 2006, (as amended, restated, supplemented or otherwise modified from time to time in accordance with its provisions, the "Note") to which reference is hereby made for all purposes; and







WHEREAS, the Parties hereto desire to amend the Note on the terms and subject to the conditions set forth herein.







NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and Ten and No/100 Dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows:








1. Definitions. Capitalized terms used and not defined in this Amendment shall have the respective meanings given them in the Note.




 


2. Amendments to the Note. The Note is hereby amended as follows:


 



(a)  Interest Rate. The annual Interest Rate on Unpaid Balance shall be sixteen per cent (16.00%).





(b)  Final Maturity. The Final Maturity shall be January 2, 2017.




 


3. Limited Effect. Except as expressly provided hereby, all of the terms and provisions of the Note and the Deed of Trust are and shall remain in full force and effect and are hereby ratified and confirmed by the Maker. The amendments contained herein shall not be construed as a waiver or amendment of any other provision of Note or Deed of Trust or for any purpose except as expressly set forth herein or a consent to any further or future action on the part of the Maker that would require the waiver or consent of the Payee.


 


4. Successors and Assigns. This Amendment shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the Payee and Maker and each of their respective successors and assigns.


 


5. Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, all of which shall constitute one and the same agreement, and any Party hereto may execute this Amendment by signing and delivering one or more counterparts. Delivery of an executed counterpart of this Amendment electronically or by facsimile shall he effective as delivery of an original executed counterpart of this Amendment


 


[Remainder of page intentionally left blank; signature page to follow]









  





1











  











IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of the Effective Date.


 




	 	Lazarus Energy LLC, as Maker	 
	 	 	 	 
	
 

	
By: 

	/s/ JONATHAN P. CARROLL	 
	 	 	

Jonathan P. Carroll

	 
	 	 	

President

	 
	 	 	 	 







 




	 	John H. Kissick, as Payee	 
	 	 	 	 
	
 

	
By: 

	/s/ JOHN H. KISSICK	 
	 	 	

John H. Kissick

	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 







 


 


 


 


2
ex10-15.htm


Exhibit 10.15


 


Westergaard Holdings Ltd.



12757 54th Avenue, Surrey, BC V3X 3C1 


(604) 970-4992


 


April 29, 2016



 


Robert C. Silzer 


DSG Global Inc.


5455 - 152 Street


Suite 214


Surrey, BC V3S 5A5


 


 


Dear Mr. Silzer:


 


RE: Westergaard Holdings Ltd. — Subscription Agreement/Debt Settlement & Addendums


 


As per your request, Westergaard Holdings Ltd. hereby extends redemption dates as set out in a Letter Agreement addressed to yourself and dated December 31, 2015 as follows:


 



	
1.  

	
I hereby agree to extend the May 1, 2016 redemption date to August 1, 2016.








	
2.  

	
I hereby agree to extend the June 1, 2016 redemption date to September 1, 2016.








	
3.  

	
I hereby agree to extend the July 1, 2016 redemption date to October 1, 2016.







 


I trust the extension of redemption dates as set out above will provide yourself and the company ample time to raise sufficient capital to redeem all of the Series A Convertible Preferred Shares owned by Westergaard Holdings Ltd. and to provide DSG Global Inc. with working capital as required to move forward.


 


Yours very truly,


 


Westergaard Holdings Ltd.


 


 


/s/ Keith Westergaard            


Keith B. Westergaard


 


 


 


 


 


keith.westergaard@gmail.com
EXHIBIT 32.1

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF

THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Fortune Industries, Inc., an Indiana corporation, (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending February 28, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John F. Fisbeck, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify the following pursuant to Section 18, U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002:

 

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:  July 7, 2008 | By: /s/ John F. Fisbeck   |
|---------------------|--------------------------------|

|   | John F. Fisbeck, |
|--------|------------------|

Chief Executive Officer
Dear 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 

2033 K STREET, N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20681 

August 2, 1985 

f65-· \2.. 

Re; CME:-SIMEX Mutual Offset System; Request for No-Action Position 

This is in response to your letter of July 18, 1985 in which you 

requested, on bellalf of the Chicag-o Mercantile Exchange ("CME" or "Exchang-e), 

that the Conrnission not take any enforcement action if the Exd1ange penni ts 

"A", Inc. to accept and carry an onmilius account of "B", Inc. for purposes of 

trading through the Mutual Offset System establishE.>d between the G1E and tJ1e 

Singapore International Monetary Exchange, Ltd. You note in your letter that 

F,xchange Rule 879 provides that an authorized Clearing Ment>er shall not:. 

accept or carry positions executed pursuant to the Mutual Offset System in an 

onmibus account of a non-member futures conmission merchant ( "FCM") registered 

as such with the Co1m1ission under the Corrm:xlity Exchange Act unless such 

account is a proprietary account (as defined in Comoission regulation 1.3 (y)) 

of the non-member FCM. Thus, absent appropriate relief, the Exchange could 

not permit "A" to accept or carry non-proprietary positions executed pursuant 

to the Mutual Offset System for "B" in an omn.:iJJus account. 

In your le·tter, you indicate that: 

"B" has represented that it will use the Mutual Offset System on 

behalf of a customer only after an authorization executed by the 

customer in the form required lmder CME Rule 87 4 is on file with 

"B". In the case of non-discretionary accounts, "B" has further 

represented that each order for Mutual Offset is to be authorized 

by the customer and designated as such when the order is taken. 

National Futures Association ( "NFA") has agreed to enforce Exchange 

Rule 874. Failure on the part of "B" to deliver the appropriate 

risk disclosure statements or to receive customer aut:J1orization 

would be a violation of NFA Corrpliance Rules, including, without 

limitation, NFA Ccmpliance Rule 2-4 and may subject "B" to disciplinary action by NFA. NFA has also undertaken to conduct periodic 

examinations of the books and records of "B" to dete:anine if "B" is 

in complian<.."E' with its agreement.. 
Page 2 

By letter dated July 30, 1985, NFA has confirmed its willingness to 

enforce Exchange Rule 874 in the m.mner descrilied above. Based upon the 

foregoing, the Division of Trading and Markets has detennined that it will 

not :r:ecommend that the Corrmi.ssion take any enforce .. ment action against the CME 

for its failure to enforce Exchange Rule 879 in the circumstances described 

obove. Of course, any different, changed, or orni tted facts might require a 

different conclusion, The Exchange may, however, proceed in a similar manner 

with respect ·to other non-rreniber futures comrnission merchants upon notice to 

the Division of Trading and Markets. 

If you have any questions concerrd.ng this matter, please contac·t 

Kenneth M. Rosenzweig, Associate Director of the Division, at (202) 254-8955. 

Very truly yours, 

Andrea M. Corcorar1 

Director
Shannon CLARK, petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 16-6252.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District denied.
##### 



Exhibit 32.2 Certification of Acting Chief Financial Officer
Pursuant to Section 302 Of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act Of 2002 I, David J. Reinke, certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of First
Federal Capital Corp.;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(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  5.
    
    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 auditors 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: August 9, 2004
    
    /s/ David J. ReinkeDavid J. ReinkeSenior Vice President and ActingChief Financial Officer
 34
Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

 Office of Public Affairs 

 Three Lafayette Centre 

 1155 21st Street, NW 

 Washington, DC 20581 

 www.cftc.gov

Final Regulations Regarding the Protection of Consumer 

Information Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act 

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) announced the publication in the Federal Register of final 

regulations that provide protections to consumer information held by entities that are subject to CFTC jurisdiction. 

These regulations implement provisions of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.

Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act) 

On July 21, 2010, Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Among 

other things, the Dodd-Frank Act further amended the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Fair and Accurate Credit 

Transactions Act of 2003 to: 

• Create a regime for a consumer to prohibit entities that are subject to CFTC jurisdiction from using certain 

consumer information obtained from an affiliate to make solicitations to that consumer for marketing 

purposes. 

• Require entities subject to CFTC jurisdiction that possess or maintain consumer information in connection 

with their business activities to develop and implement a written program and procedures for the proper 

disposal of such information. 

Who would be affected by the final regulations? 

The final regulations apply to futures commission merchants, retail foreign exchange dealers, commodity trading 

advisors, commodity pool operators, introducing brokers, swap dealers and major swap participants, regardless of 

whether they are required to register with the CFTC.

When do the final regulations become effective? 

The final regulations become effective 120 days after the date such regulations are published in the Federal Register. 

What changes were made to the final regulations from the proposed regulations? 

The final regulations are substantially similar to the proposed regulations. In response to four comment letters, the 

CFTC has made minor changes to the final regulations to ensure consistency with the other federal agencies’ final 

regulations. 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission ♦ Office of Public Affairs ♦ 202-418-5080
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 119 (Wednesday, June 20, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33063-33064]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-15520]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. GT01-17-001]


Tennessee Gas Pipeline; Notice of Compliance Filing

June 14, 2001.
    Take notice that on June 8, 2001, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company 
(Tennessee), tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, 
Substitute Fourth Revised Sheet No. 406A, with an effective date of 
June 1, 2001.

[[Page 33064]]

    Tennessee states that the referenced sheet is being filed to comply 
with the Tennessee's May 25, 2001, Letter Order in the captioned 
proceeding. In compliance with the Letter Order, Tennessee has revised 
Article XXXI of the General Terms and Conditions of its Tariff to 
reflect the Commission-approved language regarding gathering affiliate 
access. Tennessee requests that the referenced sheet be made effective 
June 1, 2001, subject to Tennessee's reserved rights to seek rehearing 
of the Letter Order and, if applicable, to modify the filing to reflect 
the outcome of any such rehearing or judicial review of these 
proceedings.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed in 
accordance with section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). 
Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically via 
the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the 
instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-15520 Filed 6-19-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
<PAGE>
                                                                   Exhibit 99.13

                           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 of Meadow Valley Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Clint
Tryon, Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, 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/ Clint Tryon
-----------------------------------------
Clint Tryon
Principal Accounting Officer
March 28, 2003
#### Kenneth L. ISRAEL; Dee Ann Israel, Appellants, v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Appellee.

No. 06-1429.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 7, 2006.

Filed: Dec. 29, 2006.

Kenneth L. Israel, Des Moines, LA, pro se.

Dee Ann Israel, Des Moines, IA, pro se.

Robert W. Metzler, Annette M. Wietecha, Joan Stentiford Ulmer, U.S. Department of Justice Tax Division, Washington, DC, for Appellee.

Before MURPHY, BYE, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Kenneth L. and Dee Ann Israel appeal from the district court’s1 dismissal of their *550civil action against the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service and the denial of their postjudgment motions. The government has filed a motion for sanctions to partially cover its expenses in defending this suit; it seeks sanctions in the amount of $8,000 for defending a frivolous appeal. Appellants have filed a motion against sanctions, repeating many of their arguments about jurisdiction and sovereignty.

After de novo review, *see LeMay v. U.S. Postal Serv.,*450 F.3d 797, 799 (8th Cir. 2006), we conclude the dismissal was proper for the reasons explained by the district court. We also find no abuse of discretion in either the denial of the Israels’ disqualification motion or the denial of their Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3) motion. *See United States v. Edwards,*159 F.3d 1117, 1131 (8th Cir.1998) (standard of review for disqualification motions); *E.F. Hutton & Co. v. Berns,*757 F.2d 215, 217 (8th Cir.1985) (standard of review for Rule 60(b)(3) motions). Accordingly, we affirm. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.

Regarding the request for sanctions, we may award “just damages” and single or double costs if we determine that an appeal is frivolous. *See*28 U.S.C. § 1912; Fed. R.App. P. 38. In this case, we find that the Israels have filed a frivolous appeal raising tax-protester arguments which have been repeatedly rejected in numerous other proceedings, including some involving the Israels. Moreover, the district court repeatedly warned the Israels that continuing to press such patently frivolous arguments would likely result in sanctions. In these circumstances, we conclude that sanctions are appropriate. *See United States v. Gerads,*999 F.2d 1255, 1256-57 (8th Cir.1993) (per curiam) (when appellant brought frivolous appeal based on tax-protester argument, court granted government’s motion for sanctions). After considering appellants’ motion against sanctions, we deny their motion. The government is awarded $5,000 in sanctions, with Judge Bye dissenting from the imposition of sanctions.

1

. The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.
Steven Jacob SEIBERT, petitioner, v. Scott CRICKMAR, Warden.

No. 16-6318.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 12, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF


THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Fortune Industries, Inc., an Indiana corporation, (the "Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Tena Mayberry, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify the following pursuant to Section 18, U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002:





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:  August 11, 2011
By: /s/ Tena MayberryTena MayberryChief Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), I,
Kenneth Lap-Yin Chan, certify that:

|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|1. | The Annual Report of ACL Semiconductors Inc. (the Company) on Form
 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 (the Report), as filed with the
 Securities and Exchange Commission as of the date hereof, 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:     April
 15, 2010 | /s/ Kenneth
 Lap-Yin Chan  
|                          |                             | 
|                          | Kenneth
 Lap-Yin Chan      
|                          | Chief
 Financial Officer of
|                          | ACL
 Semiconductors Inc.   

This certification has been furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to ACL Semiconductors Inc. and will be retained by ACL
Semiconductors Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.

---