alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.1





Exhibit 10.1


STEEL VAULT CORPORATION


WAIVER


This Waiver dated
September 4, 2009, is entered into between Steel Vault Corporation, a
Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and William J. Caragol
(“Caragol”).


Recitals



	 	A.	 	The Company entered into a letter agreement with Caragol dated as
February 13, 2009 (the “Letter Agreement”).






	 	B.	 	The consummation of the transactions contemplated under that certain
Agreement and Plan of Reorganization dated September 4, 2009, among the
Company, VeriChip Corporation, and VeriChip Acquisition Corp. (the
“Transaction”), would constitute a change of control (as defined by
the Company’s 2009 Stock Incentive Plan) thereby entitling Caragol to a
change of control payment under the Letter Agreement in the aggregate amount of
$750,000 (the “Change of Control Payment”).






	 	C.	 	Caragol believes that the merger will provide significant value for all
Steel Vault stockholders and that it is in Caragol’s interest that the
Transaction be consummated.






	 	D.	 	The Company’s obligation to pay Caragol the Change of Control
Payment could have a significant impact on the value of the merger to the other
stockholders.






	 	E.	 	Caragol has recommended that he waive the Change of Control Payment in
connection with the Transaction, and the Company has agreed.





NOW THEREFORE, in
consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the sufficiency and
receipt of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:


1. The Recitals
set forth above are incorporated herein and made a part of this Waiver.


2. Caragol hereby
waives any and all rights he may have to the Change of Control Payment in
connection with the Transaction and releases the Company from any and all
obligations to make such Change of Control Payment upon consummation of the
Transaction. If the Transaction is consummated, the Company and Caragol agree
that the Letter Agreement shall terminate and be of no further force or effect.
If the Transaction is not consummated, this Waiver shall be null and void.


3. This Waiver
may be executed, which may be by facsimile, in any number of counterparts, each
of which shall be an original, but all of which together shall constitute one
instrument.


 


1









 





4. The parties
shall execute and deliver all such further instruments and take such other and
further action as may be reasonably necessary or appropriate to carry out the
provisions of this Waiver and the intentions of the parties as expressed herein.


5. This Waiver
shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the laws of the State
of Florida.

2

 


2









 





NOW THEREFORE, this
Waiver has been signed and delivered by the undersigned as of the date set
forth above.


STEEL VAULT CORPORATION



	 	 	 	 
	By:	 	/s/ Allison Tomek 

	Name: Allison Tomek

Its: Secretary
	 
	/s/ William J. Caragol

	William J. Caragol




3
Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. Case Nos. 3:10cr53/MCR/CJK

3:12cv447/MCR/CJK

CORDERRIUS TERRELLE HUNT

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge’s Report and

Recommendation dated June 25, 2014. (Doc. 80). Plaintiff has been furnished a copy of

the Report and Recommendation and has been afforded an opportunity to file objections

pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). I have made a de novo

determination of any timely filed objections.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and any objections thereto

timely filed, I have determined that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and

incorporated by reference in this order.

2. The motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence (doc. 62) is DENIED.

3. A certificate of appealability is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED this 28th day of July, 2014.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:10-cr-00053-MCR-CJK Document 83 Filed 07/28/14 Page 1 of 1
February 27 , 2014



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

WILMA REYNOLDS , Appellant

NO. 14

- 13

- 00323

- CV V.

WELLS FARGO BANK, N. A., WELLS FARGO BANK NA, ET AL , Appellee

________________________________ Today the Court heard its own motion to dismiss the appeal from the order signed by the court below on June 6, 2013. Having considered the motion and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED

. We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by appellant, Wilma Reynolds.
We further order this decision certified below for observance.
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. CASE NO: 3:01cr8/RV

3:05cv131/RV/MD

WALTER DEVON GRANDISON

_____________________________________________________________________

ORDER

The defendant has filed a notice of appeal (doc. 106), a motion for certificate of

appealability (doc. 107) and a motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis (doc. 111), all

with respect to the order entered on May 3, 2005. Unless a certificate of appealability is

issued, the defendant may not take an appeal from the final order denying section 2255

relief. See 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1)(B). Such a certificate may issue “only if the applicant has

made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).

Because the defendant has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right, and for the reasons set forth in this court’s order of May 3, 2005, a

certificate of appealability is DENIED.

For the same reasons, there is no good faith basis for an appeal and defendant has

not shown that he is entitled to proceed in forma pauperis. Fed.R.App.P. 24(a). Therefore,

defendant’s motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis (doc. 111) is also DENIED.

Defendant shall pay the $255.00 filing fee within thirty (30) days of the date of this order.

DONE AND ORDERED this 7th day of June, 2005.

/s/ Roger Vinson 

ROGER VINSON

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:01-cr-00008-RV-EMT Document 112 Filed 06/07/05 Page 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 199 (Tuesday, October 16, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 58670]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-5093]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Cancer Institute; Amended Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the 
President's Cancer Panel, October 22, 2007, 8 a.m. to October 22, 2007, 
6:30 p.m., Hyatt Regency La Jolla, 3777 La Jolla Village Drive, San 
Diego, CA 92122 which was published in the Federal Register on 
September 26, 2007, 72 FR 54667.
    This meeting is being amended to reschedule the closed session to 
Tuesday, October 30, 2007, 2 p.m.-4 p.m., as a telephone conference. 
The meeting is closed to the public.

    Dated: October 5, 2007.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 07-5093 Filed 10-15-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
#### TAYLOR v. GREENSBORO NEWS CO.

No. 363PA82.

Case below: 57 N.C. App. 426.

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 allowed 21 September 1982. Motion of defendant to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question denied 21 September 1982.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

MICHAEL JAMES SPILLMAN,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00037-SPM -GRJ

ALACHUA COUNTY JAIL,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff initiated this cause of action by filing a letter alleging some difficulty with

the mail at the Alachua County Jail. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff did not file his complaint on the

proper forms, and failed to identify the nature of his claims, the identify of the

defendants or the relief he sought. Id. The Court directed Plaintiff in the Court’s Order

dated June 21, 2010 to file a complaint on the proper forms and to submit a partial filing

fee of $5.65 on or before August 1, 2010. (Doc. 20). An Order to Show Cause was

entered on October 18, 2010, directing a response on or before November 5, 2010.

(Doc. 22). As of this date Plaintiff has not filed a response nor has Plaintiff further

communicated with the Court.

A trial court has inherent power to dismiss a case sua sponte for failure to

prosecute. Link v. Wabash Railroad, 370 U.S. 626 (1962); Eades v. Alabama Dept. of

Human Resources, 298 Fed. Appx. 862 (11th Cir. 2008) (district court has discretion to

dismiss case sua sponte where plaintiff has failed to comply with court orders and was

on notice that such failure may result in dismissal). Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) also

authorizes a district court to dismiss an action for failure to obey a court order. 
Page 2 of 2

Plaintiff has failed to comply with the order of this Court directing that he file an

amended complaint and pay an initial filing fee. (docs. 20 and 22.) Plaintiff was advised

that failure to comply with the Court’s Order may result in a recommendation that his

case be dismissed. In view of the fact that Plaintiff has not otherwise pursued this

lawsuit and has failed to comply with the Court’s Order this case should be dismissed.

Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that this case be DISMISSED

without prejudice for failure to prosecute and for failure to comply with orders from the

Court.

At Gainesville, Florida, this 30 day of December, 2010. th

s/Gary R. Jones

GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2), a party may file specific, written objections to

the proposed findings and recommendations within 14 days after being served with a

copy of this report and recommendation. A party may respond to another party’s

objections within 14 days after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to file specific

objections limits the scope of review of proposed factual findings and

recommendations.

Case No: 1:10-cv-00037-SPM -GRJ
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 201 (Thursday, October 18, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 59113]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-5160]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

MORRIS K. UDALL SCHOLARSHIP AND EXCELLENCE IN NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL 
POLICY FOUNDATION


Sunshine Act Meetings

Time and Date: 9 a.m. to 12 p.m., Friday, November 9, 2007.

Place: The offices of the Morris K. Udall Scholarship and Excellence in 
National Environmental Policy Foundation, 130 South Scott Avenue, 
Tucson, AZ 85701.

Status: This meeting will be open to the public, unless it is necessary 
for the Board to consider items in executive session.

Matters to be Considered: (1) A report on the U.S. Institute for 
Environmental Conflict Resolution; (2) A report from the Udall Center 
for Studies in Public Policy; (3) A report on the Native Nations 
Institute; (4) Program Reports; and (5) A Report from the Management 
Committee.

Portions Open to the Public: All sessions with the exception of the 
session listed below.

Portions Closed to the Public: Executive session.

Contact Person for More Information: Christopher L. Helms, Executive 
Director, 130 South Scott Avenue, Tucson, AZ 85701, (520) 901-8500.

    Dated: October 15, 2007.
Christopher L. Helms,
Executive Director, Morris K. Udall Scholarship and Excellence in 
National Environmental Policy Foundation, and Federal Register Liaison 
Officer.
[FR Doc. 07-5160 Filed 10-16-07; 10:39 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-FN-M
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 Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
 AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
 ACTION: List of Applications Delayed more than 180 days.
 SUMMARY: In accordance with the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 5117(c), PHMSA is publishing the following list of special permit applications that have been in process for 180 days or more. The reason(s) for delay and the expected completion date for action on each application is provided in association with each identified application.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Delmer F. Billings, Director, Office of Hazardous Materials Special Permits and Approvals, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, East Building,  PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, Southeast, Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202) 366-4535. Key to “Reason for Delay” 1. Awaiting additional information from applicant. 2. Extensive public comment under review. 3. Applicantion is technically complex and is of significant impact or precedent-setting and requires extensive analysis. 4. Staff review delayed by other priority issues or volume of special permit applications. Meaning of Application Number  Suffixes N—New application. M—Modification request. PM—Party to application with modification request. Issued in Washington, DC, on October 31, 2007. Delmer F. Billings, Director, Office of Hazardous Materials, Special Permits and Approvals.
 Application No.
Applicant
Reason for 
                                 delay
Estimated 
                                 date of 
                                 completion**Modification to Special Permits**10481-M
M-1 Engineering Limited, Bradford, West Yorkshire
4
11-30-200711579-M
Austin Powder Company, Cleveland, OH
1
12-31-2007**New Special Permit Applications**14385-N
Kansas City Southern Railway Company, Kansas City, MO
4
11-30-2007


[FR Doc. 07-5575 Filed 11-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-60-M
##### 



EXHIBIT 99.5 (PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LOGO) PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Southwark Towers
32 London Bridge Street
London SE1 9SY
Telephone +44 (0) 20 7583 5000
Facsimile +44 (0) 20 7833 4652 The Directors
Barclays Bank PLC
1234 Pavilion Drive
Northampton
NN4 7SG The Directors
Gracechurch Card Funding (No. 5) PLC
54 Lombard Street
London
EC3P 3AH The Directors
Barclaycard Funding PLC
54 Lombard Street
London
EC3P 3AH The Directors
Gracechurch Receivables Trustee Limited
26 New Street
St. Helier
Jersey
JE2 3RA February 28, 2004 Dear Sirs Report of Independent Accountants We have examined managements Annual Servicer Certificate (Exhibit 99.4) that
Barclays Bank PLC (the Servicer), a wholly owned subsidiary of Barclays PLC,
has fulfilled its obligations, in its capacity as Servicer, in respect of the
minimum servicing requirements for the credit card receivables arising on
designated accounts as set forth in the clauses of the Beneficiaries Servicing
Agreement between Barclaycard Funding PLC and Barclays Bank PLC dated 23
November 1999 (BSA) specified in paragraph 3 below during the year ended 31
December 2003 . Management is responsible for the Servicers compliance with
those requirements. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on Servicers
fulfilment of obligations under the BSA based on our examination. Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards
established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and,
accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting
managements assertion about the companys compliance with those requirements
and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the
circumstances. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for
our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the
Servicers compliance with specified servicing requirements. We examined the Servicers compliance with the BSA clauses 2.1 d, 2.1.e, 2.1.f,
2.1.j, 2.2.a, 2.5.a and 2.5.b, using definitions set forth in the Master
Definitions schedule between Gracechurch Receivables Trustee Limited, Barclays
Bank PLC and Barclaycard Funding PLC dated 8 April 2003.




---



##### 



Our examination of the cash management report for September 2003, identified an
error in the cash transfer calculation, which resulted in an incorrect payment
of £8,667,005 being made by the Servicer to Gracechurch Receivables Trustee
Limited, which is an exception in relation to clause 2.5b. In our opinion, except for the deviation stated in the previous paragraph,
managements assertion that the Servicer complied with the aforementioned
requirements during the year ended 31 December 2003 is fairly stated, in all
material respects. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 28 February 2004 Yours faithfully, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP End of Filing
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.                  

###### Federal Election Commission

# AGENCY:

Federal Election Commission.

# Date and Time:

Thursday, October 25, 2007, at 10 a.m.

# Place:

999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC (Ninth Floor).

# Status:

This meeting will be open to the public.

# The Following Item Has Been Added To The Agenda:

Policy Statement Making Permanent a Program for Probable Cause Hearings.

# Person to Contact for Information:

Mr. Robert Biersack, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.

Mary W. Dove,

Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 07-5231  Filed 10-18-07; 3:18 pm]

BILLING CODE 6715-01-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE COMPANY'S
UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1997 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          1,809,531 
<SECURITIES>                                            0 
<RECEIVABLES>                                   4,517,585 
<ALLOWANCES>                                      537,157 
<INVENTORY>                                             0 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                9,794,932 
<PP&E>                                          1,436,434 
<DEPRECIATION>                                  1,226,651 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 16,618,793 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           5,894,285 
<BONDS>                                                 0 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0 
<PREFERRED>                                             0 
<COMMON>                                           29,448 
<OTHER-SE>                                     10,149,201 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   16,618,793 
<SALES>                                                 0 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                1,634,479 
<CGS>                                                   0 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                           0 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        0 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      0 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,124,482)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (913,527)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,210,955)
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0 
<CHANGES>                                               0 
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,210,955)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       (0.40)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (0.40)
        


</TABLE>
Case 1:07-cv-03587-MGC Document 17-2 Filed 09/05/2008 Page 1 of 34Case 1:07-cv-03587-MGC Document 17-2 Filed 09/05/2008 Page 2 of 34Case 1:07-cv-03587-MGC Document 17-2 Filed 09/05/2008 Page 3 of 34Case 1:07-cv-03587-MGC Document 17-2 Filed 09/05/2008 Page 4 of 34Case 1:07-cv-03587-MGC Document 17-2 Filed 09/05/2008 Page 5 of 34Case 1:07-cv-03587-MGC Document 17-2 Filed 09/05/2008 Page 6 of 34Case 1:07-cv-03587-MGC Document 17-2 Filed 09/05/2008 Page 7 of 34Case 1:07-cv-03587-MGC Document 17-2 Filed 09/05/2008 Page 8 of 34Case 1:07-cv-03587-MGC Document 17-2 Filed 09/05/2008 Page 9 of 34Case 1:07-cv-03587-MGC Document 17-2 Filed 09/05/2008 Page 10 of 34Case 1:07-cv-03587-MGC Document 17-2 Filed 09/05/2008 Page 11 of 34Case 1:07-cv-03587-MGC Document 17-2 Filed 09/05/2008 Page 12 of 34Case 1:07-cv-03587-MGC Document 17-2 Filed 09/05/2008 Page 13 of 34Case 1:07-cv-03587-MGC Document 17-2 Filed 09/05/2008 Page 14 of 34Case 1:07-cv-03587-MGC Document 17-2 Filed 09/05/2008 Page 15 of 34Case 1:07-cv-03587-MGC Document 17-2 Filed 09/05/2008 Page 16 of 34Case 1:07-cv-03587-MGC Document 17-2 Filed 09/05/2008 Page 17 of 34Case 1:07-cv-03587-MGC Document 17-2 Filed 09/05/2008 Page 18 of 34Case 1:07-cv-03587-MGC Document 17-2 Filed 09/05/2008 Page 19 of 34Case 1:07-cv-03587-MGC Document 17-2 Filed 09/05/2008 Page 20 of 34Case 1:07-cv-03587-MGC Document 17-2 Filed 09/05/2008 Page 21 of 34Case 1:07-cv-03587-MGC Document 17-2 Filed 09/05/2008 Page 22 of 34Case 1:07-cv-03587-MGC Document 17-2 Filed 09/05/2008 Page 23 of 34Case 1:07-cv-03587-MGC Document 17-2 Filed 09/05/2008 Page 24 of 34Case 1:07-cv-03587-MGC Document 17-2 Filed 09/05/2008 Page 25 of 34Case 1:07-cv-03587-MGC Document 17-2 Filed 09/05/2008 Page 26 of 34Case 1:07-cv-03587-MGC Document 17-2 Filed 09/05/2008 Page 27 of 34Case 1:07-cv-03587-MGC Document 17-2 Filed 09/05/2008 Page 28 of 34Case 1:07-cv-03587-MGC Document 17-2 Filed 09/05/2008 Page 29 of 34Case 1:07-cv-03587-MGC Document 17-2 Filed 09/05/2008 Page 30 of 34Case 1:07-cv-03587-MGC Document 17-2 Filed 09/05/2008 Page 31 of 34Case 1:07-cv-03587-MGC Document 17-2 Filed 09/05/2008 Page 32 of 34Case 1:07-cv-03587-MGC Document 17-2 Filed 09/05/2008 Page 33 of 34Case 1:07-cv-03587-MGC Document 17-2 Filed 09/05/2008 Page 34 of 34