alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order filed, July 24, 2014.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-14-00234-CV

____________

HARDRIDERS MOTORCYCLE CLUB ASSOCIATION, HARDRIDERS 

MOTORCYCLE CLUB FORT BEND COUNTY CHAPTER, HARDRIDERS 

CLUB GALVESTON COUNTY CHAPTER, HARDRIDERS CLUB 

LAFAYETTE CHAPTER, HARDRIDERS MOTORCYCLE CLUB 

BEAUMONT CHAPTER AND EFREM SEWELL, ET AL, Appellants

V.

HARDRIDERS, INC., WAVERLY NOLLEY AND SHANNON MAYFIELD, 

Appellees

On Appeal from the 151st District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2011-37278

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was originally due April 25, 2014. See

Tex. R. App. P. 35.1. Carolyn Coronado has been granted three extensions of time 
to file her portion of the record. The last extension requested by Carolyn Coronado 

stated that she could file her portion of the record by July 22, 2014. On that date, 

the record was not filed but another extension was requested. The request states 

the record can be filed by August 20, 2014. Because the reporter’s record has not 

been filed timely, we issue the following order.

We order Carolyn Coronado to file her portion of the record in this appeal 

on or before August 20, 2014. No further extension will be entertained absent 

exceptional circumstances. The trial and appellate courts are jointly responsible 

for ensuring that the appellate record is timely filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.3(c). 

If Carolyn Coronado does not timely file the record as ordered, we will issue an 

order directing the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine the reason for the 

failure to file the record.

PER CURIAM
EXHIBIT 32.2




CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350)





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Labwire, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof ("Report"), the undersigned, in
the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:





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 material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Date:
      December 23, 2008
            By: /s/ G.
      Dexter MorrisG.
      Dexter Morris, Principal Financial
Officer




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Labwire, Inc. and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 10.2





AMENDMENT TO LICENSE AGREEMENT





AMENDMENT TO LICENCE AGREEMENT dated November 23, 2009, between Neohydro Technologies Corp., hereinafter collectively referred to as “Licensee” and Gene Peckover, a Sole Proprietor and Genes Vettes of Lynden , a Washington corporation, hereinafter collectively referred to as "Licensor”.





WHEREAS, the parties desire to amended the agreement entered into between them on June 8, 2009 (the “Agreement”);





WHEREAS, the parties have not completed the performance of all of the terms and conditions of said Agreement; and,





WHEREAS, the parties desire to now amend said Agreement in order to modify


certain terms of the Agreement..





NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, it is agreed that the Agreement dated the 8th day of June 2009 is amend in the following particulars:





Section 2.1, 4.1, and Exhibit B of the Agreement is deleted in its entirety and the following is substituted therefore:





2.1. Except as set forth in paragraph 3 of this Agreement, and subject to the provisions of paragraphs 2.2 and 4 below, Licensor hereby grants to Licensee an exclusive license during the Term of this Agreement in the territory of Canada, European Union, Scandinavia, mutually agreed areas of the USA, and other such territories that shall be mutually agreed upon to market, sell, and distribute Licensor Technology (“License”) unless otherwise stated herein:





(a)
The License Price for the License, shall be allocated as set out in Exhibit B; and





4.1. Licensor hereby grants to Licensee an exclusive license during the Term of this Agreement in the territory of Canada, European Union, Scandinavia, and mutually agreed areas of the USA.  Other territories shall be mutually agreed upon to market, sell, and distribute Licensor Technology as mutually agreed upon.  There are no other Restrictions.





















1














EXHIBIT B





LICENSE PRICE








As per this Agreement and the License Price, the Licensee and Licensor accept and agree to the following terms:





1)
To purchase and have operational One Demonstration Unit by September 30, 2010.


2)
To sell at least 3 units by December 31, 2011.


3)
To sell at least 25 units by December 31, 2012.


4)
To sell at least 200 units by December 31, 2013.


5)
To sell at least 500 units by December 31, 2014.








All other provisions of the Agreement dated the 8th day of June 2009 shall remain in full force and effect.





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment to Agreement has been duly executed by the parties this 14th day of July 2010.





Licensee





Neohydro Technologies Corp.








MICHAEL KULCHESKI


By: Michael Kulcheski





Licensor





Genes Vettes of Lynden





GENE PECKOVER


By: Gene Peckover, Sole Proprietor, as President of Genes Vettes to be incorporated

















2
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report
of Mill City Ventures III, Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2017, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Douglas M. Polinsky, Chief Executive Officer
of the Company, and I, Joseph A. Geraci, II, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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 Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained
in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | /s/ Douglas M. Polinsky 
| | ------------------------
| | Douglas M. Polinsky     
| | Chief Executive Officer 
| |                         
| | November 14, 2017       
| |                         
| | /s/ Joseph A. Geraci, II
| | Joseph A. Geraci, II    
| | Chief Financial Officer 
| |                         
| | November 14, 2017
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

AMARA JUWARA,

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. 4:10cv495-SPM/WCS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al

Respondent.

________________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE comes before the court on the magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation dated December 21, 2011 (doc. 7). Petitioner has been

afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, United States

Code, Section 636(b)(1). No objections have been filed. 

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. 7) is

ADOPTED and incorporated by reference in this order.

2. The amended 2241 petition is summarily dismissed without
Page 2 of 2

prejudice. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 21st day of January, 2011.

s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

Chief United States District Judge

 CASE NO. 4:10cv495-SPM/WCS
# C_2010311EN.01000401.xml

| 16.11.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 311/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.11.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 311/4

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5879 — Alstom/RZD/Cypriot Companies/TMH)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2010/C 311/02

On 9 November 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 32010M5879. 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 32010M5879. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
#### JOSEPH STANLEY v. PRYDE W. BASINGER & COMPANY, INC., and PRYDE W. BASINGER.

(Filed 24 November, 1965.)

Trial § 4—

When plaintiff's counsel appears and announces his readiness to proceed to trial when the cause is called on a “clean-up” calendar, the court has no authority to dismiss the action on the ground of laches for failure to prosecute the action.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Gwyn, J.,*March 1965 Session of RowaN.

By this action, instituted on June 2, 1960, plaintiff seeks to recover damages for defendants’ alleged conversion of an automobile.

The case was tried at the May 1961 Term, and the jury answered the issues in favor of plaintiff. By an order entered May 18, 1961, the presiding judge set aside the verdict as being against the greater weight of the evidence. Thereafter neither plaintiff nor defendants moved to calendar the case for trial; it lay *perdu.*At the March 1965 Session, this case, along with a number of others, was placed upon a “clean-up calendar.” After receiving a copy of this calendar, defendants’ counsel wrote a letter on March 8, 1965 to the presiding judge, Honorable Allen H. Gwyn, requesting “that this matter be dismissed upon the call of the clean-up calendar.” When the case was called, as calendared, at 9:30 a.m. on March 18, 1965, plaintiff and his counsel were present in court and announced their readiness for trial. Neither defendants nor their counsel were in court. In response to Judge Gwyn’s inquiry as to why the case had not been retried, counsel for plaintiff replied that “there was not much involved and nobody pushed it.” His Honor then nonsuited the cause for that plaintiff had been “guilty of laches for failure to prosecute.” From this judgment plaintiff appeals.

*Archibald C. Bufty for plaintiff appellant.*

*Grier, Parker, Poe & Thompson by Gaston H. Gage for defendant appellees.*

*719PeR Cueiam.

Had plaintiff failed to appear when this case was called for trial pursuant to the calendar, or had plaintiff refused to go to trial after being ordered to proceed, the court below, either under G.S. 1-222(4), or in its inherent power, “could have dismissed the cause ‘as of nonsuit’ after plaintiff had been called and failed to prosecute” his suit. *Sykes v. Blakey,*215 N.C. 61, 64, 200 S.E. 910, 912. Plaintiff here, however, was present and ready for trial when his case was called. Under these circumstances, the judge was without authority to dismiss the action.

Reversed.
<PAGE>  


REVISED
PRICING SUPPLEMENT NO. 201 DATED                       Filed Pursuant to
February 22, 1996 TO PROSPECTUS DATED                  Rule 424(b)(5)
March 29, 1994 AS AMENDED BY PROSPECTUS                File No. 33-51877
DATED October 14, 1995


                           CMS ENERGY CORPORATION

     General Term Notes (servicemark of J.W. Korth & Company), Series A
                 Due 9 Months to 25 Years from date of issue

       Except as set forth herein, the General Term Notes (servicemark of
J.W. Korth & Company) offered hereby (the "Notes") have such terms as are
described in the accompanying Prospectus dated October 14, 1995.

Aggregate Principal Amount:               $235,000.00       
Original Issue Date (Settlement Date)      February 27, 1996
Stated Maturity Date:                      December 15, 1998
Issue Price to Public:                    100.00% of Principal Amount
Interest Rate:                            6.000% Per Annum
Interest Payment Dates:                   June 15 and December 15 and
                                          semi-annually thereafter
                                          Commencing June 15, 1996
Survivor's Option:                        [ X ] Yes    [   ] No
Optional Redemption:                      [   ] Yes    [ X ] No

       Agent                              Principal Amount of Notes
                                           Solicited by Each Agent
Prudential Securities Incorporated        $ 33,000.00       
EVEREN Securities, Inc.                   $      0.00       
First of Michigan Corporation             $ 13,000.00       
Roney & Co.                               $114,000.00       
J.W. Korth & Company                      $ 75,000.00       
       Total                              $235,000.00       

                                            Per Note
                                          Sold by Agents
                                           To Public           Total

Issue Price:                              $1,000.00          $235,000.00  
Agent's Discount or Commission:           $    5.00          $  1,175.00  
Maximum Dealer's Discount or
  Selling Concession:                     $    7.50          $  1,762.50  
Proceeds to the Company:                  $  987.50          $232,062.50  

CUSIP Number:   12589QJP2   
<PAGE>
#### Alfred C. Beatty, Respondent, *v.*Guggenheim Exploration Company et al., Appellants.

(Submitted June 10, 1918;

decided July 12, 1918.)

Motion for re-argument. (See 223 N. Y. 294.)

Motion granted and case set down for re-argument on the third Monday of term commencing September thirtieth next. The questions of which the court desires re-argument are the ones arising upon the claim of the plaintiff in substance that the judgment of the Appellate Division should be affirmed so far as it awarded to him a share of the profits under the Peary-Treadgold contract, and upon the opposing claim of the defendant Guggenheim Exploration Company in substance that under the view expressed by this court in its opinion in respect of plaintiff’s right to recover a share of the compensation awarded by the exploration company to the defendant Peary, the judgment of the Appellate Division should have been wholly reversed and that of the Special Term reinstated.
Opinion issued Octobe r 13, 2020

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 20
- 00643
- CV

——————————— IN RE STUART GOSCH AND BRENDA GOSCH , Relat or s

Original Proceedin g on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDU M OPINION
R e lators , Stuart Gosch and Brenda Gosch, have filed a petition fo r a writ of mandamus challenging the trial court ’s August 24, 2020 order den ying their

m otion to c ompel real party in interest , O ’ Mal ley C onstruction, Inc., “ to produce
doc uments, namely bank s tatements for accoun t s utilized for the receipt and expenditure of funds relate d to the construction of [relators ’ ] home, which are2

relevant and essential to the prosecution of [relators ’ ] claims for alter ego and misapplication of trust funds

. ” 1 We deny t he petition. All pending mo tions are denied as moot

. P ER CURIAM
Panel consists of J us tice s Ke ll y , Goodman, and C o untiss

.

1 The un de r lying case is Stuart Gosch and Brenda Gosch v. O ’ Malley Construction, Inc., Robert O ’

Malley and Patricia O ’ Malley, I

ndi vi dually , C ause N o
. 17

- 04

- 24250 , pending in the 506th District Court of Waller County, Texas, the Honorable Albert M. McCai g, Jr. p re s iding.
# C_2011098EN.01000101.xml

| 30.3.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 98/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.3.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 98/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5984 — Intel/McAfee)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2011/C 98/01

On 26 January 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 32011M5984. 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 32011M5984. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 8- 19 00

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca,
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e,

v.
Ja so n Lee Kirt le y , ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll lDefe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

.

__

__ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - St . Jo se ph

__

__ __ __ __ __ Su bm it te d: Apri l 2 5, 2 01 9 Fi le d: May 3, 20 19 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re COLLOTON, W OLLMAN, and KELLY , Cir cu it Ju dg es
.

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM.

Ja so n Kirt le y di rect ly ap pe al s th e se nt en ce th e di st ric t co ur t im po se d aft er he 1 pl ead ed gu il ty to a dr ug of fen se , pu rs ua nt to pl ea a g r e e ment co nt ai ni ng an ap pe al

The Hon or ab le Greg Kay s, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e W es t e r n 1 Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.waiv er. His co un se l ha s m ov ed t o w i t h d raw an d ha s fil ed a br ie f un de r And er s v. Ca li fo rn ia , 38 6 U.S. 73 8 (1 96 7) , ch al le ng in g th e se nt en ce as su bs ta nt iv el y
un reas on ab le . Kirt le y

ha s m ov ed for ap po in tm en t o f ne w cou ns el

.
W e wil l en fo rce th e ap pe al waiv er in th is cas e be cau se Kirt le y en te red in to th e pl ea ag reem en t an d th e ap pe al waiv er kn owi ng ly an d vo lu nt ari ly, hi s ch al le ng e to th e
se nt en ce fal ls wit hi n th e sc op e of th e ap pe al waiv er, an d no m is carr ia ge of jus ti ce
wou ld res ul t fro m en fo rci ng th e waiv er. Se e Uni te d St at es v. Sc ot t , 62 7 F.3 d 70 2, 70 4 (8 th C ir. 20 10 ); Uni te d St at es v. And is , 33 3 F.3 d 88 6, 88 9- 92 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 ) (en ba nc ). Fu rth er, we ha ve in de pe nd en tl y rev ie wed t h e r e co rd un de r Pen so n v. Ohi o , 48 8 U.S. 75 (1 98 8) , an d ha ve fo un d no no n- fri vo lo us is su es fo r ap pe al ou ts id e th e
sc op e o f th e ap pe al waiv er.

Acco rd in gl y , we gra nt co un se l’s m ot io n to wit hd raw, d en y as m oo t Ki rtl ey ’s pe nd in g m ot io n, an d d is m is s t hi s ap pe al

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-2

-
exh_1029.htm


Exhibit 10.29


 


AMENDMENT TO CONSULTING AGREEMENT







This Amendment (“Amendment”) to the Consulting Agreement by and between NetSol Technologies, Inc. (“Netsol” or the “Company”) and Roger K. Almond (“Consultant”) dated September 9, 2013 (the “Consulting Agreement”) is entered into effective as of the date indicted below.  Other than the specific amendments enumerated in the Amendment, all of the terms of the Consulting Agreement shall remain in the full force and effect, and shall not be obviated or affected by this Amendment.







In the event of a conflict between the terms of this Amendment and the Consulting Agreement, the terms of this Amendment shall govern.  All capitalized terms contained herein are, unless otherwise stated, as defined in the Agreement.







Now therefore, for good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:







Section 2 shall be amended to read as follows







2.           This Agreement shall be in full force and effect commencing upon the date hereof.  This Agreement has a term of one year beginning on the date hereof.  Either party hereto shall have the right to terminate this Agreement without notice in the event of the death, bankruptcy, insolvency, or assignment for the benefit of creditors of the other party.  NetSol shall have the right to terminate this Agreement upon delivery to Consultant of notice setting forth with specificity facts comprising a material breach of this Agreement by consultant.  Consultant shall have 48 hours to remedy such breach.  Each party shall have the right to terminate this Agreement without cause upon thirty days advance written notice.  The term of this Agreement his hereby amended to extend the term to September 9, 2015.


 




  





  











  






The Amendment is agreed to on September 9, 2014, and shall become effective as of the date first written above.



 


 



	
Consultant

	 
	 	 
	By: 	
    /s/Roger K. Almond     


	 	
    Roger K. Almond


	 	 
	 	 
	NetSol Technologies, Inc.
	 	 
	By:	    /s/Najeeb Ghauri      
	 	
    Najeeb Ghauri


	 	
    Chief Executive Officer
| (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 material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership. |
|-----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | By:    | /s/    Walter Davis                        |   |
|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Name:  |     Walter Davis                           |   |
|   | Title: |     President of                      |   |
|   |   |     Demeter Management LLC,           |   |
|   |   |     General Partner of the registrant |   |
|   | Date:  | May 14, 2010                               |   |
|   |   |                                                 |   |