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

 


Separation
and Release of Claims Agreement


 


This
Separation and Release of Claims Agreement (“Agreement”) is entered into by and between Nestbuilder.com Corp.,
a Nevada corporation (the “Employer”) and Alex Aliksanyan, an individual (the “Employee”)
(the Employer and the Employee are collectively referred to as the “Parties”) as of April 20, 2019 (the “Execution
Date”).


 


1.
The Parties hereby terminate that certain Employment Agreement between the Parties dated August 17, 2018, as amended.


 


2.
In exchange for a lump sum payment equal to One Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($1,500), representing one month of Employee’s
base salary, less all relevant taxes and other withholdings, Employee and the Employee’s heirs, executors, representatives,
administrators, agents, and assigns (collectively, the “Releasors”) irrevocably and unconditionally fully and
forever waive, release, and discharge the Employer, including the Employer’s parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, predecessors,
successors, and assigns, and each of its and their respective officers, directors, employees, and shareholders, in their corporate
and individual capacities (collectively, the “Released Parties”), from any and all claims, demands, actions,
causes of actions, judgments, rights, fees, damages, debts, obligations, liabilities, and expenses (inclusive of attorneys’
fees) of any kind whatsoever, whether known or unknown (collectively, “Claims”), that Releasors may have or
have ever had against the Released Parties, or any of them, arising out of, or in any way related to the Employee’s hire,
benefits, employment, termination, or separation from employment with the Employer by reason of any actual or alleged act, omission,
transaction, practice, conduct, occurrence, or other matter from the beginning of time up to and including the date of the Employee’s
execution of this Agreement, excluding Employee’s right to unpaid compensation from August 1, 2019 through the date of this
Agreement.


 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement as of the Execution Date above.


 


	 	 	“Employer”
	 	 	 
	 	 	Nestbuilder.com
    Corp.,
	 	 	a
    Nevada corporation
	 	 	 
	 	 	/s/
    William McLeod
	 	 	By:	William
    McLeod
	 	 	Its:	President
	 	 	 	 
	“Employee”	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	/s/
    Alex Aliksanyan	 	 	 
	Alex
    Aliksanyan, an individual
# C_2011039EN.01000602.xml

| 8.2.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 39/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 39/6

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5980 — Tranquilidade/Banco Pastor/Pastor Vida/Espirito Santo Gestion/Gespastor)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2011/C 39/04

On 20 December 2010, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M5980. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M5980. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE, ACCOUNTING ANDFINANCIAL 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 Grant Hartford Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Qfor the period ended June 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the "Report"), I, Eric Sauve, President/Chief Executive Officer/Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

   (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 
Dated: August 22, 2011

/s/Eric Sauve
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

VERDELL ROBINSON,

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. 4:09-cv-00357-MP-AK

WALTER MCNEIL,

Respondent.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 24, Petitioner’s request for production of exhibits

and for an extension of time to reply to the Response. Petitioner contends that the Respondent

served an index of the exhibits with the copy of the Response served on Petitioner, but failed to

serve the actual exhibits. The Respondent opposes the motion for production of exhibits,

arguing, inter alia, that Petitioner has failed to identify any parts of the state court record that are

not already in his possession. Doc. 26. Petitioner has filed a reply to the response, identifying

the specific pages of the record that he needs, numbering approximately 23 pages in total. Doc.

27.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2250, habeas petitioners who have been granted leave to proceed

in forma pauperis are entitled to receive copies of the record on file with the Court at no cost. In

this case, however, Petitioner has not been granted leave to proceed as a pauper. Therefore, in

order to receive copies of the record on file with the Court, Petitioner will be required to pay the

Clerk’s photocopying charge of .50 cents per page. Petitioner may submit a request for

photocopies to the Clerk, indicating the specific pages required, together with a check or money
Page 2 of 2

Case No: 4:09-cv-00357-MP-AK

order payable to the Clerk, United States District Court, in the correct amount. Petitioner should

note the case number on the check.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. Petitioner’s request for production of exhibits is GRANTED only to the extent that

Petitioner may submit a request for photocopies to the Clerk, accompanied by the

appropriate fee.

2. Petitioner’s motion for an extension of time is GRANTED. In order to allow

sufficient time for photocopying, Petitioner shall have until June 4, 2010, to file any

reply.

 

DONE AND ORDERED this 23rd day of April, 2010

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

JULIA A. DENSON, 

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO.: 4:10cv278-SPM/WCS

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,

Commissioner of Social Security, 

Defendant.

____________________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE comes for consideration upon the magistrate judge’s report

and recommendation dated May 11, 2011 (doc. 22). Each party has been

furnished a copy and has been afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant

to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). No objections have been

filed. Having considered the report and recommendation, I have determined that

the report and recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:

1. The magistrate judge’s report and recommendation (doc. 22) is

adopted and incorporated by reference in this order.

2. The decision of the Commissioner to deny Plaintiff’s application for

Case 4:10-cv-00278-SPM-WCS Document 23 Filed 06/17/11 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Social Security benefits is REVERSED and REMANDED for the purposes set

forth in the report and recommendation (doc. 22). 

DONE AND ORDERED this 16th day of June, 2011.

s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

Chief United States District Judge

 CASE NO.: 4:10cv278-SPM/WCS

Case 4:10-cv-00278-SPM-WCS Document 23 Filed 06/17/11 Page 2 of 2
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

ODELL RUTLEDGE, JR,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00160-MP-GRJ

ALACHUA COUNTY 

CIRCUIT COURT OF FLORIDA, et al,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on a “complaint” entitled “Request for a Three

Judge Court to Hear Movant’s Independent Action.” (Doc. 1). Plaintiff has not filed a

proper complaint, a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, or paid the filing fee,

despite being directed to do so. (Doc. 9). The “complaint,” as filed, is indecipherable,

and appears to name as defendants the Circuit Judge, who ruled on his post-conviction

efforts, and the state attorney, who may have prosecuted him. 

In response to an Order to Show Cause, (doc. 11), Plaintiff contends that the

matter should be transferred to the District of Columbia. He does not address either his

failure to file a proper complaint or the filing fee. There is no basis for transferring the

matter to the District of Columbia because Plaintiff and the named defendants all reside

in Florida. 

Plaintiff was warned in the show cause order that it would be recommended that

his case be dismissed for failure to prosecute if he did not comply with the Court’s

previous order. Additional grounds for dismissal are that Plaintiff’s claims – such as
Page 2 of 2

they can be determined from the papers so far filed in this cause – are baseless and

the defendants named in the papers are immune from suit. See 28 U.S.C.

§1915(e)(2)(B)(i) (court is required to dismiss a complaint at any time if it is determined

to be frivolous) and Weaver v Geiger, 294 Fed. Appx. 529, 534 (11th Cir. 2008) (judges

and prosecuting attorneys are absolutely immune from suit warranting §1915(e)(2)(B)(i)

dismissal). 

In light of the foregoing, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED

That this cause be DISMISSED for failure to prosecute and as frivolous under 28

U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B)(i). 

At Gainesville, Florida, this 18 day of October, 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-00160-MP -GRJ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION
NEWMONT GHANA GOLD LIMITED
etal.
Plaintiffs,
vs. : CASE NO. 3:11-cv-62-MCR/CJK
HILLER SYSTEMS, INC.,
Defendant.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Daniel C. Theveny, Esquire, do hereby certify that on this 17th day of September,
2012, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of Court using CM/ECF. I
also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on counsel identified below in
the manner specified, either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by
CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those counsel or parties who are not authorized

to receive electronically Noticed Electronic Filing.

BRADY RADCLIFF & BROWN LLP /
Donald C. Radcliff, Esq. |
dradcliff@brblawyers.com
P.O. Box 1668
Mobile, AL 36633

Telephone: 251-405-0071

Facsimile: 251-405-0076
Attorneys for Defendant Hiller Systems, Inc.

By: /s/Daniel C. Theven
Daniel C. Theveny, Esq
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

PETER TERENCE RUSS,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 5:11cv03/RS-GRJ

UNKNOWN FEDERAL AGENCY,

Defendant.

__________________________________/

ORDER

Before me are the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 8) and

Plaintiff’s Notice of Appeal And Objection To District Judge (Doc. 9), which shall be

construed as objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. I

have considered Plaintiff’s objections de novo.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is approved and

incorporated in this Order.

2. This case is dismissed as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

3. The clerk is directed to close the file.

ORDERED on May 19, 2011.

/S/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:11-cv-00003-RS-GRJ Document 10 Filed 05/19/11 Page 1 of 1
# C_2010297EN.01000201.xml

| 3.11.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.11.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

2 November 2010

2010/C 297/02

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,4018 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 113,18 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4564 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,87490 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,3230 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,3766 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,2030 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 24,500 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 270,75 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7097 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,9548 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,2880 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,9830 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4021 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4168 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,8660 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,8154 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,8057 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 559,75 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 9,7440 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 9,3608 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3440 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 12 511,26 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,3260 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 59,847 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 43,1555 |
| THB | Thai baht | 41,774 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,3874 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 17,2419 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 62,1700 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,4018

JPY

Japanese yen

113,18

DKK

Danish krone

7,4564

GBP

Pound sterling

0,87490

SEK

Swedish krona

9,3230

CHF

Swiss franc

1,3766

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,2030

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

24,500

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

270,75

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7097

PLN

Polish zloty

3,9548

RON

Romanian leu

4,2880

TRY

Turkish lira

1,9830

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4021

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4168

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,8660

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,8154

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,8057

KRW

South Korean won

1 559,75

ZAR

South African rand

9,7440

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

9,3608

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3440

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

12 511,26

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,3260

PHP

Philippine peso

59,847

RUB

Russian rouble

43,1555

THB

Thai baht

41,774

BRL

Brazilian real

2,3874

MXN

Mexican peso

17,2419

INR

Indian rupee

62,1700

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

 PENSACOLA DIVISION

SCOTT J. BISHOP,

Petitioner,

vs. CASE NO.: 3:10cv234/RV/MD

WALTER A. MCNEIL,

Respondent.

O R D E R

Petitioner has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

(Doc. 1). Petitioner has neither paid the $5.00 filing fee nor applied for leave to proceed

in forma pauperis. Petitioner’s case cannot proceed until he either pays the filing fee or

files a complete application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. A complete application

includes a motion with supporting affidavit, a prisoner consent form and a financial

certificate with account attachments (a printout of the transactions in petitioner’s inmate

trust account for the six-month period immediately preceding the filing of his petition). 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The Clerk shall forward to the petitioner a form application for leave to

proceed in forma pauperis. This case number shall be written on the form.

2. Within twenty-eight (28) days of the date of this order, petitioner shall either

pay the $5.00 filing fee in full, or submit a complete application for leave to proceed in

forma pauperis. Failure to do so will result in a recommendation that this case be

dismissed.

DONE AND ORDERED this 13 day of July, 2010. th

 /s/ Miles Davis

MILES DAVIS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

DONALD RAFEAL McCISKILL,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 3:09cv378/WS/EMT

WENDELL WHITEHURST, et al.,

Defendants.

______________________________________/

O R D E R

This cause is before the court on Plaintiff’s Notice of Inquiry (Doc. 11).

To the extent Plaintiff indicates in his Notice that, pursuant to the court’s order granting his

motion for leave to amend (Doc. 9), he understood the clerk would send him a copy of his complaint

(Doc. 1), his understanding is incorrect. The court did not direct the clerk to send Plaintiff a copy

of the complaint nor will it, until he first submits payment in the amount of $.50 per page, prepaid.1

As Plaintiff’s complaint is thirteen (13) pages in length, he must submit payment of $6.50 if he

wishes the court to provide him a copy of the complaint. Therefore, within twenty (20) days of the

date of docketing of this order, Plaintiff shall either submit this amount or file the amended

complaint.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. Within TWENTY (20) DAYS from the date of docketing of this order, Plaintiff shall

submit payment of $6.50 to the clerk of court as prepayment for a photocopy of the complaint (Doc.

1). Alternatively, within the same period, Plaintiff shall file his amended complaint. 

2. For Plaintiff’s convenience, the clerk shall provide Plaintiff with the blank complaint

 Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status, which permitted him to proceed without prepayment in full of the filing

1

fee, does not excuse him from the requirement of prepaying for photocopies.
Page 2 of 2

form to be used by prisoners filing actions pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

3. Failure to respond to this order as instructed may result in dismissal of this action for

failure to comply with an order of the court.

DONE AND ORDERED this 9 day of July 2010. th

/s/ Elizabeth M. Timothy 

ELIZABETH M. TIMOTHY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case No. 3:09cv378/WS/EMT
# C_2009262EN.01000202.xml

| 4.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5574 — IPIC/OMV/NOVA)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2009/C 262/04

On 26 October 2009, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32009M5574. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32009M5574. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  The undersigned hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to their knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010 of CFO Consultants, Inc. (the Company) 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 such periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in such report.  Very truly yours,   /s/ Norm LeBeoufNorm LeBeoufChief Executive Officer/s/ Norm LeBeoufNorm LeBeoufChief Financial OfficerDated: Aug. 3, 2010   A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to CFO Consultants, Inc. and will be furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.