alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
4.26


 


PROMISSORY
NOTE


 


	Borrower:	Ehave, Inc. of 277 Lakeshore Road East, Suite 203, Oakville, ON L6J 6J3 (the “Borrower”)
	 	 
	Lender:



	 	(the “Lender”),	 


 


Principal
Amount: $          USD


 


		1.	FOR VALUE RECEIVED, The Borrower promises to pay the
                                                                                                                      Lender
                                                                                                                      at such address as may be provided in writing to the Borrower, the principal sum of $ _____ USD, without interest
                                                                                                                      payable on
                                                                                                                      the unpaid principal on demand. The Lender shall receive _________ warrants for purchase of common stock of the Borrower,
                                                                                                                      with an
                                                                                                                      exercise price of $0.075. The note shall rank senior to all other debt of the Company and shall be secured. The warrants
                                                                                                                      shall be exercisable for a period of 5 years and provide for cashless exercise and contain price protection
                                                                                                                      anti-dilution provisions. The warrants shall be issued within 5 business days from the date hereof.



 


		2.	Any time while not in
default under this Note, the Borrower may repay the outstandingbalance then owing under this Note to the Lender without further
bonus or penalty.



 


		3.	This Note will be construed
in accordance with and governed by the laws of the State of New York.



 


		4.	This Note will endure to the benefit of and be binding upon
                                                                                                                      the representative heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns of the Borrower and the Lender.



 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have duly affixed their signatures under seal on this 15 day of November, 2017.


 


	SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED	Ehave,
    Inc.
	 	 	 
	November 15, 2017	Per	 






	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED	 	 
	 	 	 
	November 15, 2017	Per
Neil J. GILLESPIE, petitioner, v. REVERSE MORTGAGE SOLUTIONS.

No. 17-7054.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 16, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.
# C_2009069EN.01004601.xml

| 21.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/46

---

Action brought on 12 January 2009 — Schunk v OHIM (cylinder-shaped section of a chuck)

(Case T-7/09)

(2009/C 69/101)

Language in which the application was lodged: Germany

Parties

Applicant: Schunk GmbH & Co. KG Spann- und Greiftechnik (Lauffen am Neckar, Germany) (represented by C. Koppe-Zagouras, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of 31 October 2008 — Case R 1109/2007-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of 31 October 2008 — Case R 1109/2007-1;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: another type of mark, showing the cylinder-shaped section of a chuck, for goods in Classes 7 and 8 — Application No 3 098 894

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: Refusal of the application

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1), as the registered mark has the necessary distinctive character. Further, the registered mark has distinctive character in consequence of use under Article 7(3) of Regulation No 40/94.

Pleas in law:

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

1

---
Created with Sketch.Menu Transparency
	Contact Us Search
Search
 Main navigation

      
      About the CFTC
                          The Commission
                        Chairman & Commissioners
                        CFTC Organization
                        Advisory Committees
                        Budget & Performance
                        Privacy at the CFTC
                        Careers
                        Diversity and Inclusion at the CFTC
                        Industry Oversight
                          Industry Filings
                        Trading Organizations
                        Clearing Organizations
                        Data Repositories
                        Intermediaries
                        Market Surveillance
                        Contracts & Products
                        Rules & Rule Amendments
                        Anti-Money Laundering
                        Law & Regulation
                          Commodity Exchange Act & Regulations
                        How Rules Are Made
                        Holding Wrongdoers Accountable
                        Federal Register
                        Public Comments
                        CFTC Staff Letters
                        Office of Technology Innovation
                        Market Data & Economic Analysis
                          Data at CFTC
                        Commitments of Traders
                        Bank Participation Reports
                        Cotton On-Call
                        Financial Data for FCMS
                        Net Position Changes Data
                        Staff Reports
                        Weekly Swaps Report
                        Cleared Margin Reports
                        Office of the Chief Economist
                        Forms & Submissions
                        Learn & Protect
                          Check Registration & Disciplinary History
                        Submit a Tip
                        Reparations Program
                        RED List
                        Advisories & Articles
                        Videos
                        Publications
                        News & Events
                          Press Releases
                        Public Statements & Remarks
                        Events Carousel Rotation On
              On


External Meetings: Meeting with BP
  
    



  When
              03/13/2013

  Rulemaking(s)
              I. RegistrationXXVI. Position LimitsCross-Border

  CFTC Staff
              Gary GenslerJacqueline Mesa

  Visitor(s)
              Alan Haywood (BP)Andy Milnes (BP)Liz Reicherts (BP)Vincent Johnson (BP)

  Organization(s)
              BP


Resources

CFTC Regulations
	Commodity Exchange Act
	Privacy Policy
	Web Policy
	FOIA
	EEO Statement
	No Fear Act
	Accessibility Statement
	Procurement
	USA.gov
	Glossary

Actions

Search Public Comments
	Submit Tips & Complaints
	Search Industry FilingsWhistleblower.gov
	Office of Technology InnovationInspector GeneralSitemap

HomeCFTC Headquarters
Three Lafayette Centre
1155 21st Street, NW
Washington, DC 20581
202.418.5000
Created with Sketch.Menu Transparency
	Contact Us Search
Search
 Main navigation

      
      About the CFTC
                          The Commission
                        Chairman & Commissioners
                        CFTC Organization
                        Advisory Committees
                        Budget & Performance
                        Privacy at the CFTC
                        Careers
                        Diversity and Inclusion at the CFTC
                        Industry Oversight
                          Industry Filings
                        Trading Organizations
                        Clearing Organizations
                        Data Repositories
                        Intermediaries
                        Market Surveillance
                        Contracts & Products
                        Rules & Rule Amendments
                        Anti-Money Laundering
                        Law & Regulation
                          Commodity Exchange Act & Regulations
                        How Rules Are Made
                        Holding Wrongdoers Accountable
                        Federal Register
                        Public Comments
                        CFTC Staff Letters
                        Office of Technology Innovation
                        Market Data & Economic Analysis
                          Data at CFTC
                        Commitments of Traders
                        Bank Participation Reports
                        Cotton On-Call
                        Financial Data for FCMS
                        Net Position Changes Data
                        Staff Reports
                        Weekly Swaps Report
                        Cleared Margin Reports
                        Office of the Chief Economist
                        Forms & Submissions
                        Learn & Protect
                          Check Registration & Disciplinary History
                        Submit a Tip
                        Reparations Program
                        RED List
                        Advisories & Articles
                        Videos
                        Publications
                        News & Events
                          Press Releases
                        Public Statements & Remarks
                        Events Carousel Rotation On
              On


External Meetings: Meeting w/Barclays
  
    



  Participants discussed SEF's
      
  When
              11/06/2012

  Rulemaking(s)
              XIII. SEF Registration

  CFTC Staff
              Scott O'MaliaAndy MenonBella RozenbergAli Hosseini

  Visitor(s)
              Allison ParentKeith BaileyAlex Guest

  Organization(s)
              Barclays


Resources

CFTC Regulations
	Commodity Exchange Act
	Privacy Policy
	Web Policy
	FOIA
	EEO Statement
	No Fear Act
	Accessibility Statement
	Procurement
	USA.gov
	Glossary

Actions

Search Public Comments
	Submit Tips & Complaints
	Search Industry FilingsWhistleblower.gov
	Office of Technology InnovationInspector GeneralSitemap

HomeCFTC Headquarters
Three Lafayette Centre
1155 21st Street, NW
Washington, DC 20581
202.418.5000
Ayanna BLUE, petitioner, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

No. 15-1423.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

*78Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

STATE OF WASHINGTON,

Respondent,

C5> ~AC~

No. 67513-3-1

v -n .^ __

v£2 *v>-n:

DIVISION ONE ton*

IP1"* ^lC *P*

~C r^r"

it/>

UNPUBLISHED OPINION c=

SERGIO PERALTA,

Appellant. FILED: JUL 2 9 2013

PER CURIAM. Sergio Peralta appeals from an order amending a judgment

and sentence entered on July 2, 2009. Peralta's court-appointed attorney has filed a

motion to withdraw on the ground that there is no basis for a good faith argument on

review. Pursuant to State v. Theobald, 78 Wn.2d 184, 470 P.2d 188 (1970), and

Anders v. California. 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L Ed. 2d 493 (1967), the

motion to withdraw must:

[1] be accompanied by a brief referring to anything in the record that

might arguably support the appeal. [2] A copy of counsel's brief should

be furnished the indigent and [3] time allowed him to raise any points

that he chooses; [4] the court-not counsel-then proceeds, after a full

examination of all the proceedings, to decide whether the case is wholly

frivolous.

State v. Theobald. 78 Wn.2d at 185 (quoting Anders v. California, 386 U.S. at 744).
No. 67513-3-1/2

This procedure has been followed. Peralta's counsel on appeal filed a brief

with the motion to withdraw. Peralta was served with a copy of the brief and informed

of the right to file a statement of additional grounds for review. Peralta has filed a

statement of additional grounds for review.

The facts are accurately set forth in counsel's brief in support of the motion to

withdraw. The court has reviewed the briefs filed in this court and has independently

reviewed the entire record. The court specifically considered the following potential

issues raised by counsel:

1. Whether the trial court violated Peralta's right to be present at the July

2009 entry of the agreed order amending the judgment and sentence?

2. Whether the trial court denied Peralta his right to counsel of choice?

The court also considered the following issues raised by Peralta in his

statement of additional grounds on review:

1. Whether Peralta was denied his right to an accurate verbatim report of

proceedings?

2. Whether appointed appellate counsel had a conflict of interest?

3. Whether Peralta was denied effective assistance of counsel at the

February 18, 2009 resentencing hearing?

4. Whether Peralta voluntarily waived his rights before entry of the agreed

order of judgment on the lesser included offense of second degree

rape?

5. Whether the State breached the agreed judgment by seeking an

amended order restoring the sexual motivation finding?
No. 67513-3-1/3

The potential issues are wholly frivolous. Counsel's motion to withdraw is

granted and the appeal is dismissed.

For the court:

uQrtjJ >
Antoine POTEAT, petitioner, v. PENNSYLVANIA.

No. 17-7317.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 19, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia Office denied.
Angel GONZALEZ, petitioner, v. Julie L. JONES, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.

No. 17-7365.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 19, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
# C_2011340EN.01000501.xml

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/5

---

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 June 2011 — Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-56/10 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Figurative marks 100 and 300 - Refusal of registration - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) - Distinctive character - Descriptive character - Article 38(2) - Disclaimer of any exclusive right to a non-distinctive element of a trade mark applied for)

2011/C 340/08

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. (represented by: D. Rzążwska radca prawny)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Botis, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 19 November 2009 in Joined Cases T-425/07 and T-426/07 Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol v OHIM, by which that Court dismissed two actions brought against the decisions of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 September 2007 (Cases R 1274/2006-4 and R 1275/2006-4), concerning the applications for registration of the word marks 100 and 300 as Community trade marks — Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c), and Article 38(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1), as replaced by Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1) — Descriptive character of marks composed exclusively of figures.

Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol

OHIM

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed, |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed,

| 2. | Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 113, 1.05.2010.

1

---
Max Julian WRIGHT, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-1059.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 21, 2018.

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

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1723 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 1723

   Disavowing the partisan impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 17, 2010

 Mr. Fattah submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                     the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Disavowing the partisan impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton.

Whereas the impeachment process provides a mechanism for the removal of the 
        President, Vice President, and other federal civil officers found to 
        have engaged in ``treason, bribery, or other high crimes and 
        misdemeanors'';
Whereas the Constitution places the responsibility and authority to determine 
        whether to impeach and to draft articles of impeachment in the hands of 
        the House of Representatives;
Whereas the House took up four articles of impeachment on December 18, 1998, in 
        the 105th Congress, and acted in a politically partisan manner during 
        the impeachment of President William Jefferson Clinton; and
Whereas the American public trusts their elected representatives to serve in an 
        impartial and appropriate manner given the severity of the disciplinary 
        action sought to remove President Clinton from office: Now, therefore, 
        be it
    Resolved, That the House disavows the articles of impeachment filed 
against President William Jefferson Clinton given the irresponsible and 
inappropriately partisan manner in which the House discharged its 
constitutional duties.
                                 <all>
```
Damon HALL, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7543.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 26, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
# C_2009113EN.01004101.xml

| 16.5.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 113/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.5.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 113/41

---

Action brought on 17 March 2009 — Rintisch v OHIM — Valfeuri Pates Alimentaires (PROTIVITAL)

(Case T-109/09)

2009/C 113/82

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Bernhard Rintisch (Bottrop, Germany) (represented by: A. Dreyer, lawyer)

Applicants:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Valfeuri Pates Alimentaires SA (Wittenheim, France)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 21 January 2009 in case R 1660/2007-4; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 21 January 2009 in case R 1660/2007-4; and

| — | Order OHIM to pay the costs |
| --- | --- |

—

Order OHIM to pay the costs

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant for the Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘PROTIVITAL’, for goods in classes 5, 29 and 30 — application No 4 843 331

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited: German trade mark registration of the word mark ‘PROTI’ for goods in classes 29 and 32; German trade mark registration of the figurative mark ‘PROTIPOWER’ for goods in classes 5, 29 and 32; German trade mark registration of the word mark ‘PROTIPLUS’ for goods in classes 5, 29 and 32; German trade mark registration of the trade word ‘PROTITOP’ for goods in classes 5, 29, 30 and 32; Community trade mark registration of the word mark ‘PROTI’ for goods in classes 5 and 29

Mark or sign cited:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 40/94 as the Board of Appeal failed to assess the opposition on its merits; Infringement of Article 74(2) of Council Regulation 40/94 as the Board of Appeal failed to exercise discretion or at least failed to state reasons how it exercised discretion; Misuse of power as the Board of Appeal erred by not taking into account documents and evidence submitted by the applicant.

Pleas in law:

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          15,478
<SECURITIES>                                    32,373
<RECEIVABLES>                                   29,775
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,586
<INVENTORY>                                      2,489
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                84,330
<PP&E>                                          29,237
<DEPRECIATION>                                  21,937
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  94,375
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           29,323
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           133
<OTHER-SE>                                      64,512
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    94,375
<SALES>                                         19,890
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                31,674
<CGS>                                            5,292
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   11,287
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                15,975
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,412
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,591
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,336
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Nehemiah ARMSTRONG, petitioner, v. Wendy KELLEY, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction.

No. 16-9661.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

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