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


 





 





April
17, 2020


 


BTCS
Inc. (the “Company”)


 


Dear
Tom,


 


As
consideration for leading the Company’s a convertible note financing the Company is offering you the option to enter into
this letter agreement (the “Agreement”) whereby on acceptance the Company hereby grants you a participation
right (the “Right”) for twelve months following the date hereof. The Right will entitle you to invest up to
thirty five percent (35%) of the amount of any financing whether consisting of an offering of debt, securities, or some other
form of structured financing, including, without limitation, an equity line of credit in the Company. For the avoidance of doubt,
the Right being provided for hereunder shall exclude an underwritten public offering, a Strategic Investment, and any offerings
or issuances where only officers and directors of the Company participate. For purposes of this Right, a “Strategic Investment”
shall be defined as securities issued pursuant to acquisitions or strategic transactions approved by a majority of the disinterested
directors of the Company, but any such shall not include a transaction in which the Company is issuing securities primarily for
the purpose of raising capital or offering such securities to an entity whose primary business is investing in securities.


 


If
you choose to accept the terms of this Agreement, please indicate your acceptance by signing below and return a copy to Charles
Allen.


 


Sincerely,


 


	BTCS INC.	 
	 	 	 
	By:	/s/
    Charles Allen	 
	Name:
    	Charles
    Allen	 
	Title:	Chief
    Executive Officer	 


 


We
Agree to and Accept this Letter Agreement:


 


	Cavalry Fund I LP	 
	 	 	 
	By:	/s/
    Thomas Walsh	 
	Name:
    	Thomas
    Walsh	 
	Title:	Manager	 


 


We
hereby certify that we are an “accredited investor” as defined Rule 501 under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.


 






    	BTCS Inc.
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

SIDNEY MARTS,

Petitioner,

vs. CASE NO.: 3:09cv352/MCR/MD

WALTER A. MCNEIL,

Respondent.

 /

O R D E R

This cause comes on for considerationuponthe magistrate judge's report and

recommendation dated September 25, 2009. The petitioner 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), and I have

made a de novo determination of those portions to which an objection has been

made.

Having considered the report and recommendation and all objections thereto

timely filed, I have determined that the report and recommendation should be

adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED:

1. The magistrate judge’s report and recommendation is adopted and

incorporated by reference in this order.

2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (doc. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE, and the clerk is directed to close the file.

DONE AND ORDERED this 29th day of October, 2009.

 s/M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l y c onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). A K / R es ear ch NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON

UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T FE RNAN DO R. J I M ENEZ , P e titio n e r- A p p e lla n t, v. DI R E C T OR , NE VA DA DE P AR T ME NT O F C O R R E C T I O N S ; e t a l., R esp o n d en t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 07- 16916 D . C. N o . CV - 0 6 - 0 0 5 0 0 - RCJ ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

N e va da R obe rtC l i ve J one s , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d F e brua ry 16, 2010 ** B efo re: F E RN A N D E Z , G O U L D , an d M . S M IT H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. N evada s t at e pri soner F ernand o R . Ji m enez appeal s pro se fr om the di stri ct c o u r t’s ju d g m e n t d is m is s in g h is 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 h ab e a s p e titio n a s u n tim e ly . W e 

# FI LED MA R 02 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSA K / Res ea r ch 07- 16916 2 h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U . S. C. § 2 2 5 3 , a n d w e a f f i rm. Ji m enez cont ends thatthe di stri ctcourterre d b y di sm i ss i ng hi s habea s pe t i t i on a s unt i m e l y be c aus e he w a s e nt i t l e d t o s t a tut ory t ol l i ng f ol l ow i ng the c onc l us i on of

the f orm a l a dm i ni s tr a t i ve r e vi e w pr oc e s s i n w hi c h he s ought a d d itio n a l s e n te n c in g c r e d its . T h is a r g u m e n t la c k s m e r it. See R e dd v . Mc G r a th , 3 4 3 F . 3 d 1 0 7 7 , 1 0 8 2 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) . A l t e rna t i ve l y , J i m e ne z c ont e nds tha the i s e nt i t l e d t o e qui t abl e t ol l i ng be c aus e he w a s e nga ge d i n s e tt l e m e nte f f or t s w i th the f

orm e rdi r e c t orof

the N e va daD e pa rtm e ntof

C orr e c t i ons a nd the N e va daA tt orne y G e ne r a l ’ s of f i c e . T he di stri ctcourtdi d n oterr i n d et erm i ni ng thatJi m enez fa i l ed t o d em on stra t e that extra ordi naryci rc um st ance s m ade i ti m po ss i bl e f or hi m t o fi l e at i m el y habea s p e titio n . Se e Shannon v . N e w land , 4 1 0 F .3 d 1 0 8 3 , 1 0 8 9 - 9 0 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . T o the e xt e nttha tJ i m e ne z c l a i m s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our ts houl d ha ve c onduc t e d a n e vi de nt i a ry he a r i ng r e ga r di ng hi s c l a i m s , the r e c or d r e f l e c t s tha tthe d is tr ic t c o u rt d id n o t e rrin th is r e g a r d . Se e Sc hr i r o v . L andr i gan , 550 U . S . 465, 47 4-75 (200 7). A ll p e n d in g m o tio n s a r e d e n ie d a s m o o t. AF F I RME D.
EX-4.2



 Exhibit 4.2 

AMENDMENT TO SERIES A COMMON STOCK PURCHASE WARRANT 

This Amendment to Series A Common Stock Purchase Warrant (this “Amendment”) is dated as of September 4, 2014, by and
between Cleveland BioLabs, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) and Sabby Volatility Warrant Master Fund, Ltd. or its assigns (the “Holder”). 

RECITALS 

WHEREAS, the Company issued to the Holder a Series A Common Stock Purchase Warrant, dated
January 16, 2014 (the “Warrant”), exercisable for the Company’s Common Stock, and such Warrant is held by the Holder as of the date hereof. 

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 5(l) of the Warrant, any term thereof may be modified or amended with
the written consent of the Company and the Holder. 
 WHEREAS, the Company and the Holder wish to amend
the Warrant in accordance with the terms hereof, such that the termination date of the Warrant is extended by two (2) years and the exercise price is reduced from $1.22 to $1.02. 

AMENDMENT 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises contained herein,
and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, the Company and the Holder agree as follows: 

1. The Termination Date of the Warrant (as defined in the first paragraph of the Warrant) is hereby amended to be “January 16,
2021.” 
 2. Part b) of Section 2 of the Warrant is hereby amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows: 

“Exercise Price. The exercise price per share of the Common Stock under this Warrant shall be $1.02, subject to adjustment
hereunder (the “Exercise Price”).” 
 3. The Holder agrees to affix this Amendment to the Warrant. Unless otherwise
defined, all capitalized terms in this Amendment shall be as defined in the Warrant. The Warrant, as amended hereby, shall be and remain in full force and effect in accordance with its terms and hereby is ratified and confirmed in all respects.
Except as expressly set forth herein, the execution, delivery, and performance of this Amendment shall not operate as a waiver of, or as an amendment of, any right, power, or remedy of the Holder under the Warrant, as in effect prior to the date
hereof. 
 4. This Amendment may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which
together shall constitute one instrument. 
 [SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS] 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this
Amendment as of the first date above written. 
  

			
	CLEVELAND BIOLABS, INC.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Yakov Kogan

		
	Name:	 	 Yakov Kogan

		
	Title:	 	 CEO

	
	SABBY VOLATILITY WARRANT
MASTER FUND, LTD.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Robert Grundstein

		
	Name:	 	 Robert Grundstein

		
	Title:	 	 COO of Investment Manager



 [Signature Page to Amendment to Series A Common Stock Purchase Warrant]
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

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 on Form 10-KSB of BPZ Energy, Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Thomas E. Kelly, as Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to and solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, 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 financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| */s/ Thomas E. Kelly*                               |   |
|-----------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Thomas E. Kelly                                     |
| Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer |
| April 15, 2005                                      |   |
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5385 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5385

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To amend the Public Health Service Act to reauthorize the program of 
    payments to children's hospitals that operate graduate medical 
              education programs, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Dr. Benjy Frances Brooks Children's 
Hospital GME Support Reauthorization Act of 2018''.

SEC. 2. PROGRAM OF PAYMENTS TO CHILDREN'S HOSPITALS THAT OPERATE 
              GRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS.

    Section 340E of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 256e) is 
amended--
            (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``and each of fiscal 
        years 2014 through 2018,'' and inserting ``each of fiscal years 
        2014 through 2018, and each of fiscal years 2019 through 
        2023,'';
            (2) in subsection (b)(3)(D), by inserting ``and the end of 
        fiscal year 2022,'' after ``fiscal year 2018,''; and
            (3) in subsection (f)--
                    (A) in paragraph (1)(A)--
                            (i) in clause (iv), by striking ``; and'' 
                        and inserting a semicolon;
                            (ii) in clause (v), by striking the period 
                        at the end and inserting ``; and''; and
                            (iii) by adding at the end the following:
                            ``(vi) for each of fiscal years 2019 
                        through 2023, $105,000,000.''; and
                    (B) in paragraph (2)--
                            (i) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``; 
                        and'' and inserting a semicolon;
                            (ii) in subparagraph (E), by striking the 
                        period at the end and inserting ``; and''; and
                            (iii) by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(F) for each of fiscal years 2019 through 2023, 
                $220,000,000.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 23, 2018.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
115th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 5385

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To amend the Public Health Service Act to reauthorize the program of 
    payments to children's hospitals that operate graduate medical 
              education programs, and for other purposes.
```
#### LETHA BELLE HARRINGTON v. J. BROOKS TUCKER.

(Filed 26 February 1964.)

Appeal by defendant from *Bone, E. J„,*16 September 1963 Civil Session of Pitt. '

Civil action to recover the penalty for usury under G.S. 24-2.

*373The following issues were submitted to the jury and answered as shown:

“1. Did the defendant loan to the plaintiff the sum of $23,000.00 and knowingly take, exact and receive from the plaintiff a greater rate of interest therefor than six per cent (6%), as alleged in the complaint?

“ANSWER: Yes.

“2. If so, what amount is plaintiff entitled to recover of defendant?

“ANSWER: $7,256.66.”

From a judgment that plaintiff recover from defendant the sum of $7,256.66, with interest from the first day of the term, and taxing defendant with the costs, he appeals.

*M. E. Cavendish for defendant appellant.*

*Albion Dunn for plaintiff appellee.*

Per Curiam.

Defendant’s assignments of error present no new question of law or point requiring extended discussion. A careful examination of the record and the assignments of error shows that the jury, under application of settled principles of law, resolved the issues of fact against the defendant. Neither reversible nor prejudicial error has been made to appear. The verdict and judgment are upheld.

No error.
# C_2010204EN.01000101.xml

| 28.7.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 204/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.7.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 204/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5870 — Foxconn/Sony LCD TV Manufacturing Company in Slovakia)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2010/C 204/01

On 25 June 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 German 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 32009M5870. 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 32009M5870. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
# C_2010209EN.01000201.xml

| 31.7.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 209/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.7.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/2

---

Conduct of the activities of the General Court between 1 and 13 September 2010

2010/C 209/02

At its Plenary Meeting on 8 June 2010, the General Court took note of the fact that, by reason of the Court vacation, the taking of the oath before the Court of Justice by the new Members of the General Court will take place only after the end of that vacation. Consequently, in accordance with the third paragraph of Article 5 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, until the new Members of the General Court take up their duties:

| — | the President of the General Court will be Mr Jaeger; |
| --- | --- |

—

the President of the General Court will be Mr Jaeger;

| — | the Presidents of the Chambers of five Judges will be Mr Azizi, Mr Meij, Mr Vilaras, Mr Forwood, Ms Martins Ribeiro, Mr Czúcz, Ms Wiszniewska-Białecka and Ms Pelikánová, Presidents of Chambers; |
| --- | --- |

—

the Presidents of the Chambers of five Judges will be Mr Azizi, Mr Meij, Mr Vilaras, Mr Forwood, Ms Martins Ribeiro, Mr Czúcz, Ms Wiszniewska-Białecka and Ms Pelikánová, Presidents of Chambers;

| — | the decision of 19 September 2007 on the organisation of the General Court and the composition of the Grand Chamber (OJ 2007 C 269, p. 40), the decision of 16 June 2009 on the criteria for assigning cases to Chambers and on the composition of the Appeal Chamber (OJ 2009 C 153, p. 2), the decision of 7 October 2009 on the assignment of Judges to Chambers (OJ 2009 C 267, p. 6) and the decision of 12 May 2010 on the designation of the Judge replacing the President of the General Court as the Judge hearing applications for interim measures (OJ 2010 C 148, p. 1) will continue to apply. |
| --- | --- |

—

the decision of 19 September 2007 on the organisation of the General Court and the composition of the Grand Chamber (OJ 2007 C 269, p. 40), the decision of 16 June 2009 on the criteria for assigning cases to Chambers and on the composition of the Appeal Chamber (OJ 2009 C 153, p. 2), the decision of 7 October 2009 on the assignment of Judges to Chambers (OJ 2009 C 267, p. 6) and the decision of 12 May 2010 on the designation of the Judge replacing the President of the General Court as the Judge hearing applications for interim measures (OJ 2010 C 148, p. 1) will continue to apply.

---
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

KENNETH E MILLS,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 4:10-cv-00473-MP -WCS

BILL MCCOLLUM, STATE OF FLORIDA,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 14, Objection to Report and Recommendation

filed by Kenneth E. Mills. The Magistrate Judge recommended the case be dismissed for failure

to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Plaintiff

timely objected, stating that the “Magistrate Judge has overlooked and misapprehended the laws

and facts in plaintiff’s complaint.” This Court reviews objected-to material de novo.

Plaintiff challenges the constitutionality of two Florida statutes, concerning the crime of

sexual battery and asserts that application of the two statues by Florida courts has resulted in a

double standard that violates his due process and equal protection rights. Doc. 1. Plaintiff

argues that the Fourteenth Amendment is violated when sexual battery is charged and the offense

tried as a "noncapital felony" but then the crime is sentenced as a “capital felony.” Id. at 7. 

Plaintiff seeks “to be resentenced” or have the Court “declare . . . the judgment of conviction in

this case null and void.” Id. at 7-8.

Habeas corpus is the exclusive remedy for a prisoner who challenges "the fact or duration

of his confinement and seeks immediate or speedier release . . . ." Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S.
Page 2 of 2

Case No: 4:10-cv-00473-MP -WCS

477, 481, 114 S. Ct. 2364, 2369 (1994). Where a litigant is not challenging the fact or duration

of confinement, but rather the conditions of that confinement, then civil rights is the proper

avenue of relief. See Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 526, 122 S. Ct. 983, 990 (2002), citing

McCarthy v. Bronson, 500 U.S. 136, 111 S. Ct. 1737 (1991) and Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S.

475, 93 S. Ct. 1827 (1973). A prisoner may not seek to reduce a period of confinement through

a civil rights action. Preiser, 411 U.S. at 500, 93 S. Ct. at 1841; Heck, 512 U.S. at 486, 114 S.

Ct. at 2372.

This Court finds on de novo review that Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim on

which relief may be granted. The Magistrate Judge was correct when he concluded that

“Plaintiff clearly seeks to invalidate his conviction in this civil rights case, or be resentenced.

This claim must be brought in a habeas petition and this § 1983 case must be dismissed.” Doc.

11 at 3. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, Doc. 14, is ADOPTED

and incorporated herein. 

2. The Complaint is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) for failure to

state a claim.

3. All pending motions are DENIED.

4. The Clerk is directed to note on the docket that this case was dismissed pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

DONE AND ORDERED this 11th day of January, 2011

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge
# C_2011058EN.01000101.xml

| 24.2.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 58/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.2.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 58/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5976 — Lufthansa Technik/Panasonic Avionics/Idair JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2011/C 58/01

On 17 February 2011, 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 32011M5976. 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 32011M5976. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---