alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
sgmd_ex1019.htm


Exhibit 10.19


 


SHARE CANCELLATION AGREEMENT


 


This Share Cancellation Agreement dated May 9, 2013 (this "Agreement") is made and entered into by and between Sugarmade, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), and Scott Lantz ("Mr. Lantz"), with respect to the following facts:


 


WHEREAS, Mr. Lantz is a director and shareholder of the Company, and


 


WHEREAS, Mr. Lantz has been issued various Company Share Certificates identified originally as Certificates Number 9441; 9478; and 9499 and


 


WHEREAS Mr. Lantz now currently holds shares in the aggregate amount of 2,454,507 shares (the “Shares”) of Company Common Stock, and Mr. Lantz owns the Shares of record and beneficially, free and clear of all liens, security interests, and encumbrances of any kind whatsoever, and Mr. Lantz has full right, power and authority to execute, deliver and perform this Agreement;


 


WHEREAS, the Company has determined it is in the best interest of the Company to raise additional funds and Mr. Lantz is willing to cancel 1,300,000 of the Shares to facilitate the Company’s general ability to raise equity capital and pay for services as needed;


 


NOW, THERFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained in this Agreement, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties have agreed as follows:


 


1. Cancellation of Shares.  In consideration of $.0001 per share and the consideration described above, Mr. Lantz agrees to cancel 1,300,000 of the Shares.  Mr. Lantz shall deliver to Steve Davis, the Company Attorney, for cancellation stock certificates representing the Shares along with duly executed medallion guaranteed stock powers covering the shares (or such other documents acceptable to the Company's transfer agent) and hereby irrevocably instructs the Company, the Company Attorney and the Company's transfer agent to cancel 1,300,000 Shares. Following such cancellation, the 1,300,000 Shares will no longer be outstanding on the stock ledger of the Company and Mr. Lantz shall no longer have any interest in the Shares.


 


2. Miscellaneous.  This Agreement shall be governed by the internal laws of the State of California without regard to its conflict of laws rules, except to the extent the laws of Delaware are mandatorily applicable.  This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts and may be delivered by facsimile transmission or electronic mail in PDF.


 


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


 




	SUGARMADE, INC.	 	 	MR. LANTZ	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	By:	
/s/

	 	 	
/s/ 

	 
	 	
Clifton Leung, CEO

	 	 	
Scott Lantz

	 
	 	
Title 

	 	 	
Title
**Exhibit 32.2**

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Merisant Worldwide, Inc. (the “Company”)for the period ended September 30, 2006(the “Report”), the undersigned, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company,hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|        |   | /s/ Anthony J. Nocchiero |
|--------|--------|--------------------------|
|   |   | Anthony J. Nocchiero     |
|   |   | Chief Financial Officer  |
|   |   | November 13, 2006        |

 

----
# C_2012295EN.01002202.xml

| 29.9.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 295/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.9.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 295/22

---

Appeal brought on 25 July 2012 by Asa Sp. z o.o. against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 22 May 2012 in Case T-110/11 Asa v OHIM — Merck (FEMIFERAL)

(Case C-354/12 P)

2012/C 295/40

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Asa Sp. z o.o. (represented by: M. Chimiak, adwokat)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | set aside the contested judgment of the General Court of the European Union delivered on 22 May 2012 in Case T-110/11; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the contested judgment of the General Court of the European Union delivered on 22 May 2012 in Case T-110/11;

| — | refer the case back to the General Court for re-examination; |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the case back to the General Court for re-examination;

| — | order the Office to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Court of Justice. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Office to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Court of Justice.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant alleges that the General Court of the European Union infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (codified version) (1) by failing to have regard to the legal criteria of essential importance for the application of that provision, and by committing manifest errors in the assessment of those criteria in the circumstances of the present case.

1

Thus, the appellant alleges that the General Court did not apply correctly the interpretation relating to the criterion of the average consumer, a test which is relevant on the facts of the present case. The appellant further alleges that the General Court misappraised the inherent distinctive character of the earlier marks FEMINATAL, although the appellant submitted in its application to the General Court that the Board of Appeal of OHIM did not examine that question diligently and exhaustively. The appellant also takes the view that the General Court misappraised the trade marks’ visual and conceptual similarity. Finally, the appellant alleges that the General Court misappraised the likelihood of deceiving the average consumer.

Furthermore, the appellant alleges that the General Court infringed Article 9 of the Treaty on European Union through the application of other legal criteria in similar cases.

---

(1)  OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1.

1

---
April 17, 2013


 


Qi Long Chen


Hong Kong Baoying Investment Holdings Limited


Suite 3711-12, Office Tower Langham Place,8 Argyle Street


Mongkok, Kowloon, Hong Kong


Tel:(852) 2117-0478 Fax: (852)2117-9609


 


Mr. Chen,


 


This is to advise you that the Strategic Joint Venture Agreement
(the “Agreement”) between E-World USA Holding, Inc. and Hong Kong Baoying Investment Holdings Limited, dated and signed
on August 6, 2012, is formally terminated.


 


Paragraph 3 of the Agreement provides as follows: Party B is
responsible for investment. First investment will occur 10 days after signing of this contract of US$5 million to be wired to Party
A’s Hong Kong or USA bank account.


 


As you know, no such payment was received within 10 days of
the signing of the Agreement and in fact no such payment has been received to date.


 


On September 7, 2012, we wrote you as follows: If your company
is unable to fulfil the contract, please cancel it and inform us — as early as possible.


 


The next day you replied: [W]e are temporarily unable to make
fund available for that plant. We can, however, continue to negotiate with you when the conditions are met.


 


We have heard nothing further from you in this regard and given
the passage of time and your continued breach of the terms of the Agreement without any further attempt at negotiations on your
part, you have abandoned the Agreement of which you are in breach and the Agreement is formally terminated as of the date of this
letter.


 


Regards,


 


Dinghua Wang


CEO and President


E-WORLD USA HOLDING, INC.
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                          Independent Auditors' Consent

The Board of Directors
ECB Bancorp, Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No.
333-77689) of ECB Bancorp, Inc. on Form S-8 relating to the ECB Bancorp, Inc.
Omnibus Stock Ownership and Long-Term Incentive Plan, of our report dated
January 31, 2003, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of ECB Bancorp,
Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2002 and 2001, and the related
consolidated statements of income, shareholders' equity and cash flows for each
of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2002, which report
appears in the December 31, 2002 Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of ECB Bancorp,
Inc.

/s/ KPMG LLP

Raleigh, North Carolina
March 17, 2003
Exhibit 32.1

STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER UNDER 18 U.S.C. § 1350

I, Ashutosh Roy, the chief executive officer of eGain Communications Corporation (the Company), certify for the purposes of
section 1350 of chapter 63 of title 18 of the United States Code that, to my knowledge,

(i) the Annual Report of the Company
on Form 10-K for the period ending June 30, 2010 the (Report), fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

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



/s/    ASHUTOSH
ROYAshutosh RoySeptember 22 ,2010


A signed
original of this written statement required by 18 U.S.C. § 1350 has been provided to eGain Communications Corporation and will be retained by eGain Communications Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
---

---

EXHIBIT 13.1

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 Nexus Telocation Systems Ltd. (the "Company") on
Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Danny Stern, Chief Executive 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 to my knowledge:

| | 1. | the
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|June 28, 2005 |  | /S/ DANNY STERN
Danny SternChief Executive Officer
|------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------

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



---

---
STATE of North Carolina v. Jason Robert VICKERS

No. 281P18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 24, 2018

David W. Andrews, Assistant Appellate Defender, Jason Robert Vickers, for Vickers, Jason Robert.

Joseph L. Hyde, Kimberly N. Callahan, Assistant Attorney Generals, for State of North Carolina.

N. Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney, Glenn Gerding, Appellate Defender, for State.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 29th of August 2018 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 24th of October 2018."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 26th of September 2018 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 24th of October 2018."
# EIGINAL

\ IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA OP 24-0221
SEAN MICHAEL BELL,

Petitioner,

v. JIM SALMONSEN, Warden, Montana State Prison,

Respondent. 

# ALEC APR 2 3 2024 Bowen Greenwood Clerk of Supreme Court State of Montana ORDER

Representing himself, Sean Michael Bell has filed a "Petition For Mont. Const. Art. II § 22 Relieffl" with this Court. In three, handwritten sentences, Bell requests that this Court "Order the Prison to Shur offthe speaker in his cell wall because the s e peaker is not allowinghim to sleep. He alleges cruel and unusual punishment and represents that he has asked the prison staffto turn the speaker off. Bell's remedy is not with this Court. This Court may exercise its original jurisdiction over writs "commenced
. . .to obtain writs ofhabeas corpus, injunction,review or certiorari, mandate, quo warranto, and other remedial writs or orders," and "conducted in the manner prescribed by the applicable sections oftheMontana CodeAnnotated for the conduct ofsuch or analogous proceedings and by these rules." M. R. App. P. 14(2). Bell has not presented a request for any type ofviable writ upon which this Court may exercise its originaljurisdiction. M. R. App. P. 14(1). Bell's remedy is with the Montana State Prison. He should avail himself of the Department of Corrections policies, such as submitting an Offender/Staff Request form under DOC Policy 3.3.5 or filing a grievance under DOC Policy 3.3.3, conceming the use or volume of the speaker in his cell wall. Bell should seek relief through these administrative policies. 04/23/2024

Case Number: OP 24-0221Bell'srequest for reliefis not cognizable under any extraordinary relief,pursuant to

M. R. App. P. 14(2). Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that Bell's Petition For Mont. Const. Art. II § 22 Relief is DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is CLOSED as ofthe Order's date. TheClerk ofthe SupremeCourtis directedtoprovidea copy ofthisOrderto counsel ofrecord and to Sean Mic ael Bell. DATED this ofApril, 2024.

ChiefJustice

2
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Thomas Liotti, on Behalf of Ryan Wagner, Petitioner, v Patrick Mahoney, Respondent.

[719 NYS2d 872]

Writ of habeas corpus in the nature of an application to fix bail upon Suffolk County Indictment No. 2454-A/B-00.

Adjudged that the writ is sustained, without costs or disbursements, to the extent that bail on Suffolk County Indictment No. 2454-A/B-00 is set in the sum of $500,000, which may be posted in the form of an insurance company bail bond in that sum or by depositing the same sum as a cash bail alternative. Krausman, J. P., S. Miller, McGinity and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.
COSMOS GRANITE & MARBLE, Plaintiff, v. CAROLINA CABINETS & GRANITE INC. and Roger H. Glenister, Defendants.

No. COA18-30

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: July 17, 2018

DISMISSED.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-40101 Conference Calendar

ANTHONY L. SUMMERS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus UP GIBSON, Officer; D. DOUGHTY, Warden; UP MATTHEWS, Sergeant, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:03-CV-1406

-------------------- Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PICKERING, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Anthony L. Summers, Texas prisoner # 1130913, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action for failure to state a claim for failing to exhaust administrative remedies pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e. Summers argues that he filed his complaint in the district court without having exhausted the grievance procedures because of fear of what would happen to him, but he does not allege that he has been retaliated against for filing grievances or lawsuits. Summers United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## F I L E D August 18, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 04-40101 -2- stated in his complaint that he did not exhaust the grievance procedures at his institution. In his reply to the magistrate judge’s report, he gave no explanation for his failure to exhaust and made no argument against the magistrate judge’s recommendation of dismissal on that basis. The district court did not err in dismissing Summers’s action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. See Days v. Johnson , 322 F.3d 863, 866 (5th Cir. 2003). Summers’s appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous.
See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2. Summers is hereby informed that the dismissal of this appeal as frivolous counts as a strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), in addition to the strike for the district court’s dismissal. See Adepegba v. Hammons , 103 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 1996) (“[D]ismissals as frivolous in the district courts or the court of appeals count [as strikes] for the purposes of [§ 1915(g)].”). We caution Summers that once he accumulates three strikes, he may not proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.
STATE of North Carolina v. Daryl WILLIAMS

No. COA16-684-2

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: November 6, 2018

NO PLAIN ERROR.
Exhibit
32.2





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF


THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the annual report on Form 10-K of Versa Card, Inc. (the
"Company") for the year ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Covered Report"), I, William F.
Donavan, Principal Financial Officer of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
hereby certify that:





The
Covered Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





The
information contained in the Covered Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.





IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, I have executed this certificate as of this 16th day of April
2009.





/s/ William F. DonavanBy:
      William F. Donavan, Principal Financial OfficerDate:
      April 16, 2009
EXHIBIT 32.2

                Certification of the Chief Financial Officer
                     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 Quarterly Report of Monadnock Community Bancorp,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2005 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Karl F. Betz, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial
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 and in
connection with this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB that:

      1.    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections
            13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
            amended, and

      2.    The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the company's financial condition and
            results of operations.


Date: May 6, 2005                      /s/ Karl F. Betz
                                       ----------------
                                       Karl F. Betz
                                       Senior Vice President and Chief
                                        Financial Officer


<PAGE>  22
**Exhibit 3.2**

 

**CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT OF THE AMENDED AND RESTATED**

**CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION OF**

**EGAIN COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION**

 

**A DELAWARE CORPORATION**

 

eGain Communications Corporation, a corporation organized and existing underand by virtue of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (the “Corporation”), does hereby certify that: 

 

FIRST:    The name of the Corporation is eGain Communications Corporation. The date of the filing of its originalCertificate of Incorporation (the “Original Certificate”) with the Secretary of the State of Delaware was September 10, 1997, under the name Parsec Communications Corporation. The Original Certificate was amended and restated on March 2,1998, June 23, 1998, December 24, 1998, February 8, 1999, May 13, 1999, July 28, 1999, September 28, 1999 and February 13, 2001. 

 

SECOND:    Pursuant to Section 242 (b) of the Delaware General Corporation Law the Board of Directors of theCorporation has duly adopted, and a majority of the outstanding stock entitled to vote thereon and a majority of the outstanding stock of each class entitled to vote as a class has approved, the amendments to the Amended and Restated Certificate ofIncorporation of the Corporation set forth in this Certificate of Amendment. 

 

THIRD:    That Article FOURTH of the Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation is amended to insert the following paragraph as the third paragraph of Article FOURTH:

 

“Effective immediately upon the filingof this Certificate of Amendment with the Delaware Secretary of State, every ten (10) outstanding shares of Common Stock shall without further action by this Corporation or the holder thereof be combined into and automatically become one share ofCommon Stock. The authorized shares of the Corporation shall remain as set forth in this Certificate of Incorporation. No fractional share shall be issued in connection with the foregoing stock split; all shares of Common Stock so split that areheld by a stockholder will be aggregated and each fractional share resulting from such aggregation shall be rounded down to the nearest whole share. In lieu of any interest in a fractional share of Common Stock to which a stockholder would otherwisebe entitled as a result of the foregoing split, the Corporation shall pay a cash amount to such stockholder equal to the fair value as determined by the Board of Directors of such fractional share as of the effective date of the foregoingsplit.” 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executedthis Certificate of Amendment of the Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation on this 19th day of August,2003.