alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
FIRST AMENDMENT TO 


CONVERTIBLE PROMISSORY NOTE


 


This First Amendment
to the Convertible Promissory Note (the “Amendment”) is entered into on December 28, 2017 by and between Grey
Cloak Tech, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Borrower”), and Crown Bridge Partners, LLC, a New York limited
liability company (the “Holder”) (individually as a “Party,” and collectively as the “Parties”).


 


RECITALS


 


WHEREAS, the Parties
entered into a Securities Purchase Agreement on August 12, 2016 (as amended by Amendment No. 1 entered into on March 24, 2017 and
Amendment No. 2 entered into on December 28, 2017) (the “Agreement”);


 


WHEREAS, the Borrower
issued a Convertible Promissory Note to the Holder in the principal amount of $300,000 on August 12, 2016 (the “Note”),
the Note being issued pursuant to the Agreement;


 


WHEREAS, the Parties
have amended the Agreement to clarify that no further warrants are due to Holder under the Agreement; and


 


WHEREAS, the Parties
desire to amend the Note as set forth herein.


 


NOW THEREFORE, for
good and adequate consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follow:


 


AGREEMENT


 


1.                 
A reduced discount on the Variable Conversion Price, as set forth below, will take effect
for amounts funded by Holder to the Borrower under the Note after December 28, 2017. The second sentence of Section 1.2 (a) of
the Note is amended and restated as follows (only with respect to amounts funded by the Holder to the Borrower after December 28,
2017): 


 


The “Variable Conversion
Price” shall mean 70% multiplied by the Market Price (as defined herein) (representing a discount rate of 30%).


 


2.                 
The Holder agrees to fund an additional tranche with a purchase price of $33,333.33 and a
face amount of $40,000.00 (the “Additional Tranche”) to Borrower pursuant to the terms of the Note no later
than January 10, 2018, provided, however, that the Borrower has executed a disbursement authorization provided by the Holder for
the Additional Tranche and has satisfied the reserve requirement for all amounts outstanding under the Note (including the Additional
Tranche). 


 


 




    	 



    	 



    

3.                 
Except as set forth in this Amendment, all of the provisions of the Note, which are not in
conflict with the terms of this Amendment, including the remainder of Section 1.2(a), shall remain in full force and effect.



 


 


 


 


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


 




    	 



    	 



    

 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
the parties have executed this Amendment on the date set forth above and effective as of December 28, 2017.


 


“Borrower”
"Holder”


 


Grey Cloak Tech Inc.,Crown Bridge
Partners, LLC,


a Nevada corporationa New York
limited liability company


 


 


____________________________________________________________


By:William C. BossungBy:


Its:Chief Financial
Officer
Its:
Jill MEYER, petitioner, v. Robert WILKIE, Acting Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

No. 17-1436.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 29, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2023 ND 87

Timothy A. Johnson, Plaintiff and Appellant

v.

City of Jamestown, a Municipality

in the State of North Dakota, Defendant and Appellee

No. 20220283

Appeal from the District Court of Stutsman County, Southeast Judicial 

District, the Honorable Cherie L. Clark, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Timothy C. Lamb, Grand Forks, N.D., for plaintiff and appellant.

Brian D. Schmidt (argued) and Scott K. Porsborg (on brief), Bismarck, N.D.,

for defendant and appellee.

FILED 

IN THE OFFICE OF THE 

CLERK OF SUPREME COURT 

MAY 9, 2023 

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
1

Johnson v. City of Jamestown

No. 20220283

Per Curiam.

[¶1] Timothy Johnson appeals from a judgment dismissing his personal 

injury action against the City of Jamestown entered after a jury found he did 

not sustain a serious injury as a result of a motor vehicle collision with a Cityowned vehicle. Johnson argues the district court erred in admitting and

excluding evidence, the district court judge should have recused herself, and 

his due process rights were violated. We conclude the district court did not 

abuse its discretion in admitting and excluding evidence and Johnson is 

precluded from raising the recusal and due process issues for failure to raise 

them in the district court. Franciere v. City of Mandan, 2020 ND 143, ¶ 24, 945 

N.W.2d 251 (“Because alleged judicial bias was not raised in the district court, 

we will not address it for the first time on appeal.”); Matter of Didier, 2019 

ND 263, ¶ 11, 934 N.W.2d 417 (concluding that appellant’s failure to raise 

constitutional due process issue in the district court was sufficient for this 

Court to decline review on appeal). We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 

35.1(a)(4) and (7).

[¶2] Jon J. Jensen, C.J.

Daniel J. Crothers

Lisa Fair McEvers

Jerod E. Tufte

Douglas A. Bahr
Darnell RICHMOND, petitioner, v. ILLINOIS.

No. 17-7360.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 19, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District denied.
Douglas C. CHARNOCK, Jr., petitioner, v. VIRGINIA, et al.

No. 17-1281.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 16, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
Shaun CHAPMAN, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8173.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 16, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
Motion Granted and Abatement Order filed October 6, 2020 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-19-00245-CV

____________

THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS M.D. ANDERSON CANCER CENTER, 

Appellant

V.

LAURENCE BOLTON AND MICHAEL BOLTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND 

AS EXECUTORS OF THE ESTATE OF MARILYN BOLTON, 

DECEASED, Appellees

On Appeal from the 189th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2016-10855

ORDER

On July 29, 2019, appellant filed an unopposed motion to abate this appeal

for 90 days. The motion states the parties have reached a tentative settlement 

agreement and asks that the appeal be abated. The motion is GRANTED. 

The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this court’s 
2

active docket until January 4, 2021. The appeal will be reinstated on this court’s 

active docket at that time, or when the parties file a motion to reinstate or motion 

dismiss the appeal. The court may reinstate the appeal on its own motion.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Jewell, and Zimmerer
EXHIBIT 32: Rule 13a-14(b)
Certifications
  The
undersigned officers certify that this report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that
the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Smooth Global
(China) Holdings, Inc.
 
 A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Smooth Global (China) Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by Smooth Global
(China) Holdings, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.
 
 April
      14, 2009
                      /s/ Zheng ShuyingZheng
      Shuying (Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
    Officer)
II-00148

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Robert New <jwtusjp@comcast.net>

Saturday, December 4, 2010 3:23 PM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

1) Securities and Exchange Commission/Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Commercial Risk (CFTC PIN

3235-AK65, SEC File Number $7-12-10)

Dear Commissioners Shapiro and Gensler: Don’t let the American Bankers Association (ABA) redefine important terms like

"commercial risk" to keep banks that engage in risky derivatives trading from complying with transparency and business

conduct requirements. Commercial risk should not be expanded to include financial risk. Accepting the ABA argument

would open the door for exemptions for risky hedge funds and insurance companies.

2) Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Position Limits (PIN 3038-AD 17 )

Dear Commissioner Gensler: The CFTC needs to set strong position limits to crack down on the energy and food commodity

speculation that serves no productive purpose. I urge the Commission to define limits that will address not only manipulation,

but also excessive speculation, which will require a stricter approach.

3) U.S. Department of the Treasury, Re: FX Swaps (75 FR 66426 Document Number 2010-27274)

Dear Secretary Geithner: Just say "no" to foreign exchange traders who want to exempt foreign currency derivatives from the

clearing and transparency requirements of the

Dodd-Frank Act. $4 trillion dollars a day is traded in these highly-leveraged swaps and this number may increase to over $10

trillion in a decade. As the head of the Financial

Stability Oversight Board your job is to decrease risk in the system, not encourage off-book trading and opaque markets.

Robert New

2 Teenies Tiny Rd

Rutland, VT 05701-9820
Jeffrey A. DICKERSON, petitioner, v. Manuel QUIROZ, Jr.

No. 17-1385.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 4, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Tommy McGUIRE, petitioner, v. Julie L. JONES, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.

No. 16-9691.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied, and petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit dismissed. See Rule 39.8.
EXHIBIT 24



                                POWER OF ATTORNEY


                  KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS that each person whose
signature appears below hereby constitutes and appoints L. Dan Thompson and
Daniel H. Stacken, and each of them, his attorney-in-fact, with full power of
substitution, for the purpose of signing on his behalf, in any and all
capacities, the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Minnesota Corn Processors, LLC
pursuant to Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2000 (the "10-K Report") and of signing any
and all amendments to the 10-K Report and to deliver the 10-K Report and any and
all amendments thereto as each thereof is so signed for filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.


/s/ L. Dan Thompson                    Dated: June 26, 2000
-------------------
    L. Dan Thompson


/s/ Daniel H. Stacken                  Dated: June 26, 2000
---------------------
    Daniel H. Stacken


/s/ Jerry Jacoby                       Dated: June 26, 2000
----------------
    Jerry Jacoby
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





I,
Michael J. Loiacono, the Chief Financial Officer and Chief Accounting Officer of
Global Axcess Corp. (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:





(1)           the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of the Company for the third quarter ended September
30, 2010  (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m
or 78o(d)); and





(2)           the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated:  January
27, 2011





/s/ Michael J. LoiaconoName:  Michael
      J. LoiaconoTitle:  Chief
      Financial Officer and Chief Accounting
Officer
# C_2012013EN.01001101.xml

| 14.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 13/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 13/11

---

Judgment of the General Court of 23 November 2011 — Dennekamp v Parliament

(Case T-82/09) (1)

1

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to the affiliation of certain Members of the European Parliament to the additional pension scheme - Refusal to grant access - Exception relating to the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual - Article 8(b) of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 - Transfer of personal data)

2012/C 13/20

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Gert-Jan Dennekamp (Giethoorn, Netherlands) (represented by: O. Brouwer, A. Stoffer and T. Oeyen, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament (represented initially by N. Lorenz, H. Krück and D. Moore, and subsequently by N. Lorenz and D. Moore, Agents)

Defendant:

Interveners in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: B. Weis Fogh, J. Bering Liisberg and S. Juul Jørgensen, Agents); Republic of Finland (represented by: J. Heliskoski and H. Leppo, Agents); and European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) (represented initially by H. Hijmans and H. Kranenborg, and subsequently by H. Kranenborg and I. Chatelier, Agents)

Interveners in support of the applicant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Decision A(2008) 22050 of the European Parliament of 17 December 2008 refusing to grant the applicant access to certain documents relating to the affiliation of certain Members of the European Parliament to the additional pension scheme.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Gert-Jan Dennekamp to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Parliament; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Gert-Jan Dennekamp to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Parliament;

| 3. | Orders the Kingdom of Denmark, the Republic of Finland and the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Kingdom of Denmark, the Republic of Finland and the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 102, 1.5.2009.

1

---
Kevin HINSON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6069.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 31, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.

Justice KAGAN took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

                    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Advisory Council on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, May 10, 2022, 11:00 a.m. to May 11, 2022, 3:00 p.m., National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 6700B Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20817, which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on March 30, 2022, FR Doc. No. 2022-06714, 87 FR 18374.                

This notice is being amended to change the start and end times of the open session on May 10, 2022, from 12:45 p.m. to 12:30 p.m. and from 5:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. As such the May 10, 2022, open session will now be held from 12:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. The meeting is partially closed to the public.

Dated: April 8, 2022. 

Melanie J. Pantoja,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2022-07910 Filed 4-12-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
Michael GONZALEZ, petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 16-9634.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida denied.
Case Number 05-15-01512-CV 

IN THE FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

at Dallas 

__________________________________________________________________ 

JUSTINE INGELS 

Appellant, 

v. 

DIANE R. EARNEST 

Appellee. 

__________________________________________________________________ 

From Cause No. CC-13-05584 in the County Court at Law No. 1 

Of Dallas County 

__________________________________________________________________ 

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE AND DESIGNATION OF 

LEAD COUNSEL 

__________________________________________________________________ 

WALTERS, BALIDO & CRAIN, L.L.P. 

Gregory R. Ave

State Bar No. 01448900 

10440 North Central Expressway 

Meadow Park Tower, Suite 1500 

Dallas, Texas 75231 

Telephone Number (214) 347-8310 

Facsimile Number (214) 347-8311 

Greg.ave@wbclawfirm.com 

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE 

December 14, 2015 DIANE R. EARNEST 

ACCEPTED

05-15-01512-cv

FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS

DALLAS, TEXAS

12/14/2015 9:54:19 AM

LISA MATZ

CLERK

 FILED IN 5th COURT OF APPEALS DALLAS, TEXAS 12/14/2015 9:54:19 AM LISA MATZ Clerk
1 

TO THE HONORABLE DALLAS COURT OF APPEALS:

 COMES NOW, Gregory R. Ave, a partner in the law firm of Walters, 

Balido & Crain, L.L.P., pursuant to Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 

6.1(c), and files this Notice of Appearance and Designation of Lead Counsel 

for Appellee Diane R. Earnest (“Appellee”). Accordingly, counsel for 

Appellee requests the Court take notice and that all correspondence, 

notices, briefs, pleadings, motions, orders, opinions, judgments, and other 

communications be directed to the undersigned. Pursuant to Texas Rule of 

Appellate Procedure 6.1(c), the following information is being provided 

regarding lead counsel: 

Gregory R. Ave 

Texas State Bar No. 01448900 

Walters, Balido & Crain, L.L.P. 

Meadow Park Tower, Suite 1500 

10440 North Central Expressway 

Dallas, Texas 75231 

Telephone Number: (214) 347-8310 

Facsimile Number: (214) 347-8311 

greg.ave@wbclawfirm.com. 
2 

 Respectfully submitted, 

WALTERS, BALIDO & CRAIN, L.L.P.

 By: /s/ Gregory R. Ave 

 Gregory R. Ave 

 Texas State Bar No. 01448900 

 greg.ave@wbclawfirm.com

 10440 North Central Expressway 

 Meadow Park Tower, Suite 1500 

 Dallas, Texas 75231 

 (2l4) 347-8310 

 (2l4) 347-8311 (facsimile) 

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 On December 14, 2015, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was 

sent to all opposing counsel of record as follows: 

Ted B. Lyon, Esquire Via E-serve

Richard Mann, Esquire 

Ted B. Lyon & Associates, P.C. 

Town East Tower, Suite 525 

18601 LBJ Freeway 

Mesquite, Texas 75150 

 

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT 

JUSTINE INGELS 

 /s/ Gregory R. Ave 

 Gregory R. Ave
The following cases in which the Court of Appeals issued published opinions have been

appealed to the Supreme Court:

1

. Eric Lisann

v. Elizabeth Lisann

Record No. 0120

- 22

- 4

Opinion rendered by Judge Chaney on

August 8, 2023

2

. Tadashi D. Guest

v. Commonwealth of Virginia

Record No. 0 672

- 22

- 2

Opinion rendered by Judge Ortiz on

August 8 , 2023

3

. Jason Lamont Burford

v. Commonwealth of Virginia

Rec ord No. 1275

- 22

- 4

Opinion rendered by Judge Athey on

August 8, 2023

4

. Virginia Alcoholic Beverage Control Authority

v. Zero Links Markets, Inc., T/A Vinoshipper.com

Record No. 0973

- 22

- 2

Opinion rendered by Judge Raphael on

August 15, 2023

5. Navy Federal Credit Union

v. Deloris B. Lentz

Record No. 1115

- 22

- 2

Opinion rendered by Judge White on

August 15, 2023

6. Darren Thornton, s/k/a/ Darren Lamar Thornton

v. Commonwealth of Virginia

Record No. 0652

- 22

- 2

Opinion rendered by Judge Chaney on

August 22, 2023

7

. Prasad Salunkhe, et al.

v. Christopher Customs, LLC, et al.

Record No. 1195

- 22

- 4

Opinion rendered by Judge Athey on

August 22, 2023

8

. Bryan Temple Smith

v. Commonwealth of Virginia

Record No. 0 169

- 22

- 2

O pinion rendered by Judge Raphael on

September 5, 20239

. Silfredo Castillo Canales

v. Commonwealth of Virginia

Record No. 0775

- 22

- 4

Opinion rendered by Senior Judge Clements on

September 5, 2023

1 0

. Silfredo Castillo Canales

v. Commonwealth of Virginia

Record No. 1037

- 22

- 4

Opinion rendered by Senior Judge Clements on

September 5, 2023

1 1

. Dilliraj Bista

v. Commonwealth of Virginia

Record No. 0904

- 21

- 4

En banc opinion rendered by Judge O’Brien on

September 12, 2023

1 2

. John Randolph Hooper

v. Commonwealth of Virginia

Record No. 0752

- 22

- 1

Opinion rendered by Judge Beales on

September 19, 2023

13

. Jeffrey Douglas Cheripka

v. Commonwealth of Virginia

Record No. 1153

- 22

- 2

Opinion rendered by Senior Judge Petty on

September 19, 2023The following case in which the Court of Appeals issued a published opinion ha s been

disposed of by the Supreme Court:

1

. Danjuan Antonio McBride

v. Commonwealth of Virginia

Record No. 1354

- 21

- 4

Opinion rendered by Judge Lorish

on October 4, 2022

Judgment of Court of Appeals reversed and final judgment entered for

the Commonwealth ( 220715 )On October 19, 2023 the Supreme Court issued a publish ed order in the following case,

which had been appealed from this Court

1

. Heath Nicholas Moison

v. Commonwealth of Virginia

Record No. 1038

- 21

- 1

Memorandum opinion rendered by Judge Athey on August 2, 2022

Judgment of Court of Appeals affirmed but portion of opinion deciding

proffered testimony provided appellant with an alibi vacated

( 220536 )
II-00657

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Virginia Bennett <vbennett@hawaii.edu>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 12:53 PM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

1) Securities and Exchange Commission/Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Commercial Risk (CFTC RIN

3235-AK65, SEC File Number $7-12-10)

Dear Commissioners Shapiro and Gensler: Don’t let the American Bankers Association (ABA) redefine important terms like

"commercial risk" to keep banks that engage in risky derivatives trading from complying with transparency and business

conduct requirements. Commercial risk should not be expanded to include financial risk. Accepting the ABA argument

would open the door for exemptions for risky hedge funds and insurance companies.

2) Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Position Limits (RIN 3038-AD 17 )

Dear Commissioner Gensler: The CFTC needs to set strong position limits to crack down on the energy and food commodity

speculation that serves no productive purpose. I urge the Commission to define limits that will address not only manipulation,

but also excessive speculation, which will require a stricter approach.

3) U.S. Department of the Treasury, Re: FX Swaps (75 FR 66426 Document Number 2010-27274)

Dear Secretary Geithner: Just say "no" to foreign exchange traders who want to exempt foreign currency derivatives from the

clearing and transparency requirements of the

Dodd-Frank Act. $4 trillion dollars a day is traded in these highly-leveraged swaps and this number may increase to over $10

trillion in a decade. As the head of the Financial

Stability Oversight Board your job is to decrease risk in the system, not encourage off-book trading and opaque markets.

Virginia Bennett

1201 Wilder Ave

Honolulu, HI 96822