alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Unassociated Document









Exhibit 10.5




JOINDER TO


SECURITY AGREEMENT







This Joinder to Security Agreement (“Joinder”) is made on this _________, 2010 (the “Effective Date”) by  ________________ (“Investor”).







WHEREAS, as of the date hereof, Applied DNA Sciences, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) has issued and sold to the Investor a senior secured convertible note (the “Investor Note”) in a private placement transaction (the “Offering”);







WHEREAS, as part of the Offering, the Investor will become a party to that certain Security Agreement (the “Security Agreement”), dated as of July 15, 2010 made by APDN (B.V.I.) Inc., a corporation organized under the laws of the British Virgin Islands and wholly owned subsidiary of the Company (“BVI”), in favor of Etico Capital, LLC, a limited liability company organized under the laws of Delaware, as Collateral Agent for the Buyers (as defined in the Security Agreement), pursuant to which the Investor Note will be secured by a security interest in all of the assets of BVI.







NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises and the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein, the parties hereto agree as follows:


 


1.           Joinder to Security Agreement.  Investor hereby agrees to be become a party to and to be bound by all of the terms and provisions of the Security Agreement as a Buyer for all purposes thereunder.  In addition, the Investor Note will be deemed to be a “Note” (as defined in the Security Agreement).


 


2.           Applicable Law. This Joinder will be construed in accordance with, and the rights of the parties governed by, the laws of the State of New York, without regard to the choice of law provisions thereof.


 


3.           Counterparts; Incorporation.  This Joinder may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original and all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same instrument.  The recitals to this Joinder are hereby incorporated by reference and made a part hereof for all purposes.


 







 


[Remainder of page intentionally left blank]


 




  





  











  






IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Joinder as of the date first above written.


 



	  	
[INVESTOR]


	  	  
	  	  
	  	
By:_________________________________


	  	
Name:


	  	
Title:












 


AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED:







 


APDN (B.V.I.), INC.,


a Delaware corporation







 


By:_____________________________


Dr. James A. Hayward


President and Chief Executive Officer







 


ETICO CAPITAL, LLC.,


a Delaware limited liability corporation







 


By:_____________________________


Scott A. Weisman


Managing Director
----

(2004/C 65 E/166)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2430/03

by Niels Busk (ELDR) to the Commission

(22 July 2003)

Subject:   State aid to Italian farmers

Will the Commission challenge the Council's decision to approve Italian State aid to Italian milk producers in the Court of Justice?

If not, what are the ‘exceptional circumstances’ justifying the decision (see Article 88(2), third paragraph of the Treaty)?

If the same ‘exceptional circumstances’ exist in other Member States or new Member States, will the Commission approve corresponding State aid in those cases?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(12 September 2003)

The Commission does not intend to challenge the Council decision.

As to the exceptional circumstances recognised by the Council, the Commission would refer to the text of the Council Decision 2003/530/EC (1).

The Commission considers that the Council decision in question can not be invoked as a precedent for eventual future implementation problems of the milk quota levy in Italy or in other Member States.

----

(1)  2003/530/EC: Council Decision of 16 July 2003 on the compatibility with the Common market of an aid that the Italian Republic intends to grant to its milk producers, OJ L 184, 23.7.2003.

----
STATE v. CHITWOOD.

No. COA08-759.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed February 17, 2009.

Certification Date March 9, 2009.

Appeal from Gaston (03CRS25296).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
##### 





Certification of Chief Executive Officer, President and Chief
Financial Officer






| |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (i) the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of the
    Operating Partnership for the year end period ended
    December 31, 2004 (the Report) fully
    complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
    Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange
    Act of 1934, as amended; and
|
| | (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly
    presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
    results of operations of the Operating Partnership.                                                                                                                               





| |                                          
| | -----------------------------------------
| | /s/ Hamid R. Moghadam                    
| |                                          
| | Hamid R. Moghadam                        
| | Chairman and CEO                         
| | of AMB Property Corporation,             
| | the general partner of AMB Property, L.P.
|
| | /s/ W. Blake Baird                       
| |                                          
| | W. Blake Baird                           
| | President and Director                   
| | of AMB Property Corporation,             
| | the general partner of AMB Property, L.P.
|
| | /s/ Michael A. Coke                      
| |                                          
| | Michael A. Coke                          
| | CFO and                                  
| | Executive Vice President                 
| | of AMB Property Corporation,             
| | the general partner of AMB Property, L.P.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 178 (Thursday, September 15, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 54566]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18360]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Bureau of Customs and Border Protection


Notice of Cancellation of Customs Broker License Due to Death of 
the License Holder

AGENCY: Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of 
Homeland Security.

ACTION: General notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to Title 19 of the Code 
of Federal Regulations Sec.  111.51(a), the following individual 
Customs broker licenses and any and all permits have been cancelled due 
to the death of the broker:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        License
                 Name                     No.           Port name
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas A. Borgia.....................     10419  Miami.
Karl A. Becnel.......................     09684  New
                                                 Orleans.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Dated: September 8, 2005.
Jayson P. Ahern,
Assistant Commissioner, Office of Field Operations.
[FR Doc. 05-18360 Filed 9-14-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-06-P
Frances ATIAPO, Employee v. GOREE LOGISTICS, INC., and Owen Thomas, Inc., Employer, Noninsured and The North Carolina Industrial Commission v. Goree Logistics, Inc., and Owen Thomas, Inc., Noninsured, Employer, and Mandieme Diouf, Individually.

No. 139P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 20, 2015.

John F. Scarborough, for Owen Thomas, Inc.

Lawrence P. Margolis, for Goree Logistics, Inc., et al.

Kenneth C. Martin, for Atiapo, Frances.

Marc X. Sneed, Assistant Attorney General.

John F. Scarbrough, for Owen Thomas, Inc.

Sidney S. Eagles, Jr., for American Trucking Association, Inc. and North Carolina Trucking Association.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 21st of April 2015 by Defendant (Goree Logistics, Inc. and Mandieme Diouf) in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of August 2015."
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 the Interior

###### Bureau of Land Management 

          - [WY-920-1310-01; WYW159200] 

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Land Management, Interior. 

# ACTION:

Notice of proposed reinstatement of terminated oil and gas lease. 

# SUMMARY:

Under the provisions of 30 U.S.C. 188(d) and (e), and 43 CFR 3108.2-3(a) and (b)(1), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) received a petition for reinstatement of oil and gas lease WYW159200 from EOG Resources Inc. for lands in Fremont County, Wyoming. The petition was filed on time and was accompanied by all the rentals due since the date the lease terminated under the law. 

      ( print page 54767)    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Bureau of Land Management, Pamela J. Lewis, Chief, Fluid Minerals Adjudication, at (307) 775-6176. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The lessee has agreed to the amended lease terms for rentals and royalties at rates of $10.00 per acre or fraction thereof, per year and 16                    2/3                     percent, respectively. The lessee has paid the required $500 administrative fee and $166 to reimburse the Department for the cost of this                     **Federal Register**                     notice. The lessee has met all the requirements for reinstatement of the lease as set out in Section 31(d) and (e) of the Mineral Lands Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 188), and the Bureau of Land Management is proposing to reinstate lease WYW159200 effective June 1, 2004, under the original terms and conditions of the lease and the increased rental and royalty rates cited above. BLM has not issued a valid lease affecting the lands.                 

Pamela J. Lewis, 

Chief, Fluid Minerals Adjudication. 

[FR Doc. 05-18441 Filed 9-15-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310-22-P
ex10-48.htm


Exhibit 10.48




 


EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


 


Third Amendment


 


THIRD AMENDMENT, dated as of August 27, 2010 (“Third Amendment”) to the EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT, dated as of January 7, 2008, and previously  amended as of June 4, 2008, and January 1, 2010, between Advance Auto Parts, Inc. (“Advance” or the “Company”), a Delaware corporation, and Darren R. Jackson (the “Executive”) (the “Agreement”).


 


The Company and the Executive agree as follows:


 


1.             Amendment of Section 1 of the Agreement.  Effective September 1, 2010, Section 1 of the Agreement is hereby amended by revising the second paragraph thereof to read as follows:


 


“The term of Executive’s employment by the Company pursuant to this Agreement shall commence on January 7, 2008 (“Commencement Date”) and shall end on the day prior to the third anniversary of the Commencement Date, unless sooner terminated under the provisions of Paragraph 4 below (“Employment Term”); provided, however, that commencing on the third anniversary of the Commencement Date the Employment Term shall be automatically extended for an additional period of one year unless, not later than December 1, 2010, either party shall have given notice to the other that it does not wish to extend the Employment Term, in which case the Employment Term shall end on the day prior to the third anniversary of the Commencement Date; and on each anniversary thereafter the Employment Term shall be automatically extended for an additional period of one year unless, not later than 90 days prior to such automatic extension date, either party shall have given notice to the other that it does not wish to extend the Employment Term, in which case the Employment Term shall end 90 days following such notice.”


 


2.             Full Force and Effect.   Except for those terms and provisions amended herein, all other terms and conditions in the Agreement shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.


 







 


[SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]


 


 




  





  











  








 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company and Executive have executed this Agreement as of the date first written above.


 




	 	
Advance Auto Parts, Inc.

	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	By:	 	 	 	 	(SEAL) 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	Print Name:  Sarah E. Powell	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	Title: 	Senior Vice President, General 	 
	 	 	Counsel and Corporate Secretary 	 
	 	Address: 	5008 Airport Road 	 
	 	 	Roanoke, VA 24012 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	Executive	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	Print Name:  Darren R. Jackson	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	Signature: 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	Address: 	 	 
	 	Address: 	290 Woodlawn Avenue 	 
	 	 	St. Paul, MN 55105
STATE of North Carolina v. Tunisia DAWSON.

No. 6P16.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 17, 2016.

Thomas H. Moore, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Paul M. Green, Assistant Appellant Defender, for Dawson, Tunisia.

N. Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney, for Dawson, Tunisia.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 5th of January 2016 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th of March 2016."
#### Plymouth Organization, Inc., Respondent, v Silverman, Collura & Chernis, P.C., et al., Appellants.

[799 NYS2d 813]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for legal malpractice, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Solomon, J.), dated May 21, 2004, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff commenced this action against the defendants, a law firm and individual attorneys, alleging that the defendants’ professional negligence in advising it with regard to an investment offering resulted in economic losses to the plaintiff. The *465complaint alleged that the plaintiff, a corporation which sought to acquire parcels of real property and convert them to income-producing rental units or to improve them with residential or industrial buildings, was counseled by the defendants with regard to conducting a private placement investment offering of securities in order to obtain financing for its business venture. Upon the advice of the defendants, the plaintiff engaged the services of “finders,” who would contact investors and receive commissions based on the investment money that they raised. According to the plaintiff, the defendants failed to advise it that such “finders” were required to be licensed brokers and also failed to reveal other improprieties in the manner of solicitation of investments. The plaintiff ultimately received letters from authorities in various states directing it to cease and desist sales, questioning the legality of the investment offering, and commencing investigations into the matter. As a result, the plaintiffs offering was terminated.

Following the commencement of this action and the conducting of discovery, the defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, contending, among other things, that the plaintiffs claims for damages were impermissibly speculative. The Supreme Court denied the motion. We affirm.

“Mere speculation about a loss resulting from an attorney’s alleged omission is insufficient to sustain a prima facie case of legal malpractice” *(Giambrone v Bank of N.Y., 253*AD2d 786, 787 [1998]). Rather, “[the] plaintiff must prove that it was the attorney’s negligence which proximately caused the actual and ascertainable damages that resulted” *(Ressis v Wojick,*105 AD2d 565, 567 [1984]). While the plaintiffs claims for damages regarding lost investment opportunities, a shortfall between assets and liabilities, and commissions paid to the unlicensed “finders” are speculative, the plaintiff succeeded in making a prima facie showing of other actual and ascertainable damages it sustained due to the alleged negligent advice of the defendants. Accordingly, the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on this basis was properly denied.

The defendants’ remaining contention with regard to the liability of the defendant Gary .Mair is without merit. Prudenti, P.J., Goldstein, Crane and Mastro, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6537

JERVON R. CLARK,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

STAN BURTT, Warden, Lieber Correctional Institution,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.

(3:06-cv-03243-RBH)

Submitted: August 14, 2008 Decided: August 20, 2008

Before MICHAEL, Circuit Judge, and WILKINS and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jervon R. Clark, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy

Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jervon R. Clark seeks to appeal the district court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order

is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Clark 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 the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
In the Matter of L.B.B.

No. COA15-164.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Aug. 18, 2015.

**CASE REPORTED WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
**EXHIBIT
      23.1**




**CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**




We
      hereby
      consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
      Form
      S-3 (No. 333-109355, No. 333-120801 and No. 333-137577) and on Form S-8 (No.
      333-60290, No. 333-31448 and No. 333-125829) of our report dated March 7,
      2007, which included an explanatory paragraph regarding the Company’s change in
      the accounting principle in its method of accounting for share-based
      compensation, on our audits of the consolidated financial statements of On2
      Technologies, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2006 and 2005 and
      for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2006,
      included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K. We also consent to the reference
      to
      us under the heading "Experts" in the Registration Statements on Form
      S-3.






Eisner
      LLP





New
      York,
      New York


March
      22,
      2007
STATE of North Carolina v. William Howard McKEITHEN, Defendant.

No. COA15-223.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Aug. 4, 2015.

Attorney General Roy A. Cooper, III, by Assistant Attorney General Peggy S. Vincent, for the State.

Winifred H. Dillon, for defendant-appellant.

STROUD, Judge.

On or about 3 November 2014, William Howard McKeithen ("defendant") was charged by information with obtaining property by false pretenses. On or about 3 November 2014, he entered a plea of guilty to the charge. Thereafter, the trial court sentenced him to a mitigated-range term of imprisonment for 11 to 23 months. Defendant appeals.

Counsel appointed to represent defendant has been unable to identify any issue with sufficient merit to support a meaningful argument for relief on appeal and asks that this Court conduct its own review of the record for possible prejudicial error. Counsel has also shown to the satisfaction of this Court that she has complied with the requirements of *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *State v. Kinch,*314 N.C. 99, 331 S.E.2d 665 (1985), by advising defendant of his right to file written arguments with this Court and providing him with the documents necessary for him to do so. Counsel directs our attention to a potential issue on appeal but acknowledges that she has detected no reversible error on the part of the trial court.

Defendant has not filed any written arguments on his own behalf with this Court and a reasonable time in which he could have done so has passed. In accordance with *Anders,*we have fully examined the record to determine whether any issues of arguable merit appear therefrom or whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. *See**Anders,*386 U.S. 738, 18 L.Ed.2d 493. We conclude the appeal is wholly frivolous. Furthermore, we have examined the record for possible prejudicial error and have found none.

AFFIRMED.

Judges DAVIS and INMAN concur.

Report per Rule 30(e).

**Opinion**

Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 3 November 2014 by Judge Scott Etheridge in District Court, Moore County. Heard in the Court of Appeals on 20 July 2015.