alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 4.56

AMENDMENT TO CONFIRMATION

|DATE:      |  | 4TH September 2003                                                                                            
|---------- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|TO:        |  | Durban Roodepoort Deep, Limited
(Incorporated in the Republic of South Africa)
Registration No. 1895/000926/06
|ATTENTION: |  | Ian Louis Murray                                                                                              
|FAX:       |  | (011) 482 1022                                                                                                
|FROM:      |  | Investec Bank (Mauritius) Limited                                                                             
|SUBJECT:   |  | American Call Option                                                                                          
|REF No:    |  | 0010                                                                                                          
|          

This Amendment to Confirmation Agreement ("Amendment"), dated as of September 4, 2003, is entered into by and between Durban Roodepoort Deep, Limited
("Durban") and Investec Bank (Mauritius) Limited ("Investec"). Unless otherwise stated, any capitalized term used but not defined herein shall have the meaning given to such term in
Regulation S ("Regulation S") of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act").

WHEREAS, Durban and Investec have entered into a Confirmation, dated August 14, 2003 (the "Confirmation") whereby Durban grants to
Investec the option (the "Option") to purchase 18 million ordinary shares of Durban subject to the terms and conditions set forth therein; and

WHEREAS, Durban and Investec wish to enter into this Amendment in order to amend the Confirmation as set forth below. To the extent that
there are any inconsistencies between the original Confirmation and this Amendment to Confirmation, the contents of this document will prevail.

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

---







2

---



IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be executed as of the date set forth above.

| |  | DURBAN ROODEPOORT DEEP, LIMITED  
| |  | ---------------------------------
| |  |                                  
| |  | By:                              
| |  |                                  
| |  | INVESTEC BANK (MAURITIUS) LIMITED
| |  | By:                              
| |  |                                  
| |  | By:                              

3

---

QuickLinks
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

ALEXANDER M. ALBRITTON,

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. 1:11-cv-0014-MMP-GRJ

SECRETARY, DEPT. OF

CORRECTIONS,

Respondent.

___________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 1, a petition for a writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The petition stems from Petitioner’s 1991 Alachua

County conviction of first degree murder and other offenses, for which Petitioner is

serving a life sentence. 

Although Petitioner did not disclose his prior federal habeas case as required by

the petition form, a review of the Court’s docket reflects that Petitioner has been denied

relief under § 2254 as to this conviction. See Albritton v. Moore, Case No. 1:00-cv0099-MP-WCS, Doc. 7 (N.D. Fla. 8/2/00) (dismissing petition as time-barred). The

Eleventh Circuit denied Petitioner a certificate of appealability. Id. Doc. 24. Thus, the

instant Petition is successive. 
Page 2 of 2

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A), this Court cannot consider a second or

successive habeas petition until a panel of the Eleventh Circuit has authorized its filing. 

There is no indication that Petitioner has satisfied the requirements for filing this case,

and thus, it is not properly before this Court for consideration. 

In light of the foregoing, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED:

That the petition for writ of habeas corpus, Doc. 1, be DISMISSED AS AN

UNAUTHORIZED SECOND OR SUCCESSIVE PETITION.

IN CHAMBERS this 25 day of January 2011. 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: 1:11-cv-0014 MP-GRJ
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5518 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5518

 To amend the Public Health Service Act to establish a preference, in 
  the allocation of donated organs, for individuals who are lawfully 
         present in the United States, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 13, 2018

  Mr. Posey introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Public Health Service Act to establish a preference, in 
  the allocation of donated organs, for individuals who are lawfully 
         present in the United States, 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. PREFERENCE FOR LAWFULLY PRESENT INDIVIDUALS IN THE 
              ALLOCATION OF DONATED ORGANS.

    (a) Organ Procurement Organizations.--Subparagraph (E) of section 
371(b)(3) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 273(b)(3)) is 
amended to read as follows:
            ``(E) have a system to allocate donated organs equitably 
        among transplant patients according to established medical 
        criteria and, in so allocating donated organs, give preference 
        to individuals who are lawfully present in the United States 
        over individuals who are unlawfully present in the United 
        States,''.
    (b) Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network.--Section 
372(b)(2)(B) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 274(b)(2)(B)) 
is amended to read as follows:
            ``(B) establish membership criteria and medical criteria 
        for allocating organs, provide to members of the public an 
        opportunity to comment with respect to such criteria, and 
        include in such criteria a preference for allocating donated 
        organs to individuals who are lawfully present in the United 
        States over individuals who are unlawfully present in the 
        United States,''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 10.2


 





AMENDMENT TO CONSULTING AGREEMENT


 


 


This Amendment to
Consulting Agreement, dated as of September 11, 2014 ("Amendment"), between Alcimede LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company (the "Company"), and Medytox Solutions, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Client").


WHEREAS, the Company
and the Client are parties to that certain Consulting Agreement, dated as of October 1, 2012 (the "Agreement");


WHEREAS, pursuant
to the Agreement, the Company has been providing consulting services to the Client including providing management (including officers
or directors of the Client and any subsidiary or related companies if required) as may be required by the Client;


WHEREAS, in connection
therewith Seamus Lagan has been elected as Chief Executive Officer of the Client and, as a result, the Company's services to the
Client under the Agreement have correspondingly increased in scope; and


WHEREAS, the Company
and the Client desire to amend the Agreement to reflect such increased scope of services.


NOW, THEREFORE,
the Company and the Client agree as follows:


1.                 
Section 3(a) of the Agreement is amended to read in its entirety as follows:


(a)               
Retainer for Consulting Services. A non-refundable retainer for consulting services (the "Retainer") of
thirty-one thousand two hundred fifty dollars ($31,250) per month will be paid as follows:


 


                                                                   
i.                       
Fifteen thousand six hundred twenty-five dollars ($15,625) will be paid on or before the 15th day of each month;
and


                                                                 
ii.                       
Fifteen thousand six hundred twenty-five dollars ($15,625) will be paid on or before the last working day of each month.


2.                 
On and after the date hereof, each reference in the Agreement to this "Agreement," "hereunder," "hereof,"
or words of like import referring to the Agreement shall in each case mean and be a reference to the Agreement as amended hereby.
Except as specifically amended hereby, the Agreement is and shall continue to be in full force and effect. This Amendment may be
executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original and all of which, taken together, shall constitute
one and the same instrument.




    	1



    	 



    


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


	 	MEDYTOX SOLUTIONS, INC.
	 	 
	 	 
	 	By: /s/ Jace Simmons
	 	       Jace Simmons (CFO)
	 	 
	 	ALCIMEDE LLC
	 	 
	 	 
	 	By: /s/ Seamus Lagan


 


 




 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 






    	2
# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

January 14, 2013

By the Court:

No. 11

‐ 1683

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

‐ Appellee

,

v.

CHRISTOPHER L. SPEARS,

Defendant

‐ Appellant

. Appeal from the

United States District Court for the

Northern District of Indiana,

Hammond Division.

No. 2:10cr55

‐ 001

Rudy Lozano,

Judge

.

O R D E R

The petition for rehearing en banc is GRANTED

. The panel’s opinion and judgment

are VACATED

. The parties shall file new briefs addressing the following question:

Does the crime of aggravated identity theft as defined in

18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1) require a theft or other misappropriation of another person’s

identifying information when the prosecution relies only on the “knowing transfer”

part of the statute?

In addition to any other statutory language that bears on the question, the parties

should specifically address the meaning of the phrases “without lawful authority” and

“means of identification of another person .” The parties should also address the effect, if any,

of the Supreme Court’s decision in Flores

‐ Figueroa v. United States

, 556 U.S. 646 (2009), on

this question.No. 11

‐ 1683 Page 2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that briefing will proceed as follows:

1. The opening brief of defendant

‐ appellant Christopher Spears is due on or before

February 11, 2013.

2. The responsive brief of plaintiff

‐ appellee the United States is due on or before

March 13, 2013.

3. The reply brief is due on or before March 27, 2013.

Counsel should submit thirty

‐ five (35) copies of all briefs, appendices, and citations

of additional authority.

Oral argument will be scheduled by separate order.
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

CARL MORGAN,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 3:10cv247/MCR/EMT

W. HICKS, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________/

ORDER

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

Recommendation dated July 26, 2011 (Doc. 49). 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. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to comply 

with an order of the court.

DONE AND ORDERED this 24th day of August, 2011.

s/ M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:10-cv-00247-MCR-EMT Document 50 Filed 08/24/11 Page 1 of 1
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.                  

###### Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

# Contact Person for More Information:

Stephen Llewellyn, Executive Officer on (202) 663-4070.

Dated: December 10, 2007.

Stephen Llewellyn,

Executive Officer, Executive Secretariat.

[FR Doc. 07-6042 Filed 12-10-07; 11:48 am]

BILLING CODE 6570-01-M
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

# AGENCY:

DoD, Office of the Under Secretary (Personnel and Readiness).

# ACTION:

 Notice.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, as codified at 50 U.S.C. App. 531, prohibits a landlord from evicting a Service member (or the Service member's family) from a residence during a period of military service except by court order. The law as originally passed by Congress applied to dwellings with monthly rents of $2400 or less. The law requires the Department of Defense to adjust this amount annually to reflect inflation, and to publish the new amount in the                         **Federal Register.**                         We have applied the inflation index required by the statute. The maximum monthly rental amount for 50 U.S.C. App. 531(a)(1)(A)(ii) as of January 1, 2007, will be $2720.95.                    

# EFFECTIVE DATE:

January 1, 2007.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Colonel C. Garcia, Office of the Under                               ( print page 1320)                            Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, (703) 697-3387.                    

Dated: January 5, 2007.

L.M. Bynum,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 07-66 Filed 1-10-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-06-M
# C_2010085EN.01000101.xml

| 31.3.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 85/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.3.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 85/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5666 — Xerox/Affiliated Computer Services)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2010/C 85/01

On 19 January 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 32010M5666. 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 32010M5666. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Housing and Urban Development

          - [Docket No. FR-5125-N-08]

# AGENCY:

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for possible use to assist the homeless.

# EFFECTIVE DATE:

February 23, 2007.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kathy Ezzell, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Room 7262, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 708-1234; TTY number for the hearing- and speech-impaired (202) 708-2565, (these telephone numbers are not toll-free), or call the toll-free Title V information line at 1-800-927-7588.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    In accordance with the December 12, 1988 court order in                     *National Coalition for the Homeless*                     v.                     *Veterans Administration*, No. 88-2503-OG (D.D.C.), HUD publishes a Notice, on a weekly basis, identifying unutilized, underutilized, excess and surplus Federal buildings and real property that HUD has reviewed for suitability for use to assist the homeless. Today's Notice is for the purpose of announcing that no additional properties have been determined suitable or unsuitable this week.                

Dated: February 15, 2007.

Mark R. Johnston,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Special Needs.

[FR Doc. 07-769  Filed 2-22-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4210-67-M
# C_2011111EN.01000902.xml

| 9.4.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 111/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.4.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 111/9

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6116 — Europ Assistance France/Malakoff Mederic/EAP France)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2011/C 111/04

On 1 April 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 French 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 32011M6116. 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 32011M6116. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
# C_2011006EN.01000302.xml

| 11.1.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.1.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6054 — First Reserve Corporation/Blackstone/PBF Energy)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2011/C 6/03

On 21 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 32010M6054. 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 32010M6054. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---