alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 10.92





EXTENSION AGREEMENT





This Extension Agreement (this “Agreement”), dated as of March 19, 2011, is entered into by and among Location Based Technologies, Inc., a Nevada corporation (“Company”), and Michael Glazer, an individual (the “Holder”).





R E C I T A L S:





WHEREAS, the Holder has loaned $35,000 to the Company, which is evidenced by a promissory note agreement issued to the Holder on July 21, 2010 with an original maturity date of September 21, 2010 (the “Note”) and a first extension agreement issued to the Holder on September 22, 2010 with an extended maturity date of March 19, 2011,





WHEREAS, the Company and the Holder intend to extend the Maturity Date of the Note further and add a conversion feature in accordance with the terms hereof;





A G R E E M E N T:





NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises and the mutual covenants set forth in this Agreement, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:





1.Extension of Maturity Date.The Maturity Date under the Note is hereby extended from March 19, 2011 until March 31, 2011.





a.           Conversion.At any time and from time to time the Note shall be convertible, in whole or in part, into shares of the Company’s Common Stock (“Conversion Shares”) at the option of the Holder.  The Holder shall effect conversions by delivering written notice to the Company specifying therein the principal amount of the Note to be converted.  The number of Conversion Shares issuable upon a conversion shall be determined by the quotient obtained by dividing (x) the outstanding principal amount of the Note to be converted plus any accrued but unpaid interest thereon, by (y) the Conversion Price, where the “Conversion Price” shall equal $0.20.The Conversion Shares shall be duly and validly issued, fully paid and non-assessable and, following the applicable Rule 144 holding period, freely tradable.  The Holder shall receive the stock certificate(s) within five (5) business days following the date of conversion.  See Exhibit A.




2.Interest.  The Note shall continue to accrue interest at a rate of 10% per annum.





3.Full Force and Effect.  Except as otherwise expressly provided herein, the Note and the Extension Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.  Except for any waivers and modifications contained herein, this Agreement shall not in any way waive or prejudice any of the rights or obligations of the Holder or the Company under this Agreement, under any law, in equity or otherwise, and such waivers and modifications shall not constitute a waiver or modification of any other provision of the Agreements nor a waiver or modification of any subsequent default or breach of any obligation of the Company or of any subsequent right of the Holder.




1




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed and delivered this Agreement as of the date first written above.







LOCATION BASED TECHNOLGIES, INC.








By:





David M. Morse


CEO & Co-President














MICHAEL GLAZER








By:





Michael Glazer


Individual
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-40450

Summary Calendar

KERRY JERMAIN WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

COMMISSIONER,

Defendant-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:09-CV-47

Before DeMOSS, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Kerry Jermain Williams, Texas prisoner # 865221, appeals the district

court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint which he filed against Paul

Kiel, a Texas Parole Commissioner. Williams alleged in his complaint that Kiel

had violated his equal protection and due process rights by treating him

differently than other inmates with regard to parole decisions. Williams further

complained that Kiel denied him parole based on erroneous information. 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

January 26, 2010

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

Case: 09-40450 Document: 00511012323 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/26/2010
No. 09-40450

2

Williams’s appellate brief does not address the district court’s reasons for

dismissing his claims. Instead, he erroneously and conclusorily asserts that the

district court erred in granting the defendant absolute immunity from

declaratory and injunctive relief. Although we apply less stringent standards

to parties proceeding pro se than to parties represented by counsel and liberally

construe briefs of pro se litigants, pro se parties must still brief the issues and

reasonably comply with the requirements of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure

28. Grant v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir. 1995). We will not raise and

discuss legal issues that Williams has failed to assert; when an appellant fails

to identify any error in the district court’s analysis, it is the same as if the

appellant had not appealed that judgment. Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy

Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Because Williams has failed to

brief any issue, his appeal is frivolous and is dismissed. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

The district court’s dismissal of Williams’s § 1983 complaint pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) and this court’s dismissal of this appeal as frivolous both

count as strikes for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons,

103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). Williams is cautioned that if he

accumulates three strikes, he will no longer be allowed to proceed in forma

pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained

in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.

See § 1915(g).

DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.

Case: 09-40450 Document: 00511012323 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/26/2010
**EXHIBIT
      32** **.1**









**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**




**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**




**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT BY**




**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**














In
      connection with the Quarterly Diamond Ranch Foods, Ltd, on Form 10-QSB for
      the
      quarter ending September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission on the date hereof (the "REPORT"), the undersigned, Louis Vucci,
      Jr.,
      President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted
      pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of
      my
      knowledge and belief:




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 result of operations of the Company.














Date:
      November 10,
      2006




/s/
      Louis Vucci,
      Jr.




By:
      / Louis Vucci,
      Jr., President and Director
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
Quarterly Report of AmREIT Monthly Income & Growth Fund IV, L.P. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, H.
Kerr Taylor, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in my capacity as an
officer of the General Partner of the Company, that, to my knowledge:

| |    |                                                                                                                                                       
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | 1. | The Report fully
 complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable,
 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: May 14, 2010 | By:   | /s/ H. Kerr
 Taylor                                                                                                                                          
|                   | Name: | H. Kerr Taylor                                                                                                                                               
|                   | Title | President and Chief
 Executive Officer of AmREIT Monthly Income & Growth IV Corporation, the
 General Partner of AmREIT Monthly Income & Growth Fund IV, L.P.

---
# Viy-.-6Am--f

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 24 - 0138 THE ESTATE OF WILLIAM HARRIS, III, Counter- Plaintiff and Appellant, v. MICHAEL REILLY,

Counter- Defendant and Appellee/Cross Appellant. ORDER OF MEDIATOR APPOINTMENT
This appeal being subject to M.R.App.P. 7, and the parties having failed to jointly and timely select a mediator under M.R.App.P., 7(4),(c), IT IS ORDERED THAT **David B. Gallik,** whose name appears next on the list of attorneys de siring appointment as mediators for Money Judgments appeals which is maintained pursuant to M.R.App.P., 7(4)(e), is hereby appointed to conduct the mediation process required by M.R.App.P., 7(5), and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the time periods set forth in M.R.App.P., 7(5)(d) shall run from the date of this order of appointment. A true copy of this order is being mailed to counsel of record for the parties, or to the parties individually if not represented by counsel, on the date hereof. DATED this April 2, 2024.

Bowen Greenwood , Clerk of the Supreme Court c: Adam Cook, Timothy M. Dick 04/02/2024
Case Number: DA 24-0138
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 19 (Monday, January 29, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 2817]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-1486]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. CP96-136-000]


NorAm Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Request Under Blanket 
Authorization

January 23, 1996.
    Take notice that on January 16, 1996, NorAm Gas Transmission 
Company (NGT), 1600 Smith Street, Houston, Texas 77002, filed a request 
with the Commission in Docket No. CP96-136-000 pursuant to Sections 
157.205 and 157.211 of the Commission's Regulations under the Natural 
Gas Act (NGA) to construct and operate certain facilities in Logan 
County, Arkansas, authorized in blanket certificate issued in Docket 
No. CP82-384-000 and CP82-284-001, all as more fully set forth in the 
request on file with the Commission and open to public inspection.
    NGT proposes to construct and operate a 2-inch tap and 1-inch 
first-cut regulator on NGT's Line BT-14 in Section 29,Township 8 North, 
Range 25 West, Logan County, Arkansas. NGT states that the gas would be 
delivered to ARKLA, a distribution division of NorAm Energy Crop. 
(AKRLA). NGT further states that the volumes to be delivered to this 
meter station would be approximately 600 MMBtu annually and 2.5 MMBtu 
on a peak day. The estimated cost of construction of the tap and first-
cut regulator would be $2,700, which would be reimbursed by ARKLA.
    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 45 days after the 
Commission has issued this notice, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the 
Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or 
notice of intervention and pursuant to Section 157.205 of the 
Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205) a protest to the request. If 
no protest is filed within the allowed time, the proposed activity 
shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time 
allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn 
within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a protest, the instant 
request shall be treated as an application for authorization pursuant 
to Section 7 of the NGA.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-1486 Filed 1-26-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 112 (Monday, June 10, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 29364]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14503]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP96-153-001]


ANR Pipeline Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC Gas 
Tariff

June 4, 1996.
    Take notice that on May 30, 1996, ANR Pipeline Company (ANR) 
tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No. 
2), the following tariff sheets, to become effective January 1, 1996:

Fourteenth Revised Sheet No. 570
Original Sheet No. 570A
First Revised Sheet No. 573

    ANR states that the above-referenced tariff sheets are being filed 
pursuant to the Commission's May 15, 1996 Order granting ANR's request 
for suspension of Rate Schedule X-64 tariff provision in the captioned 
proceeding. ANR states that the revised tariff sheets reflects 
suspension of ANR's tariff provisions regarding the requirement to 
annually redetermine the monthly charge for services provided to High 
Island Offshore System under ANR's Rate Schedule X-64.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington DC 20426, in accordance with the 18 CFR 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceeding. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-14503 Filed 6-7-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1138 NORTH ALMA SCHOOL ROAD, SUITE 101

MESA, ARIZONA 85201

Telephone: 480.461.5300 | Fax: 480.833.9392

David R. Schwartz - #009264

das@udallshumway.com

Kimberly R. Davis - # 030210

krd@udallshumway.com

Attorneys for Defendants Maricopa County

Community College District, Wise

and Miranda

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Cindi Tanner, an individual,

Plaintiff,

v.

Maricopa County Community College

District, a political subdivision of Arizona; 

Maria Wise, an individual and in her 

official capacity; Vivian MirandaStrawbridge, an individual and in her 

official capacity,

Defendants.

NO. CV-18-00377-PHX-SPL

NOTICE OF CONDITIONAL 

SETTLEMENT

Notice is hereby given that at the settlement conference before Magistrate Judge 

Bridget Bade the parties agreed upon a conditional settlement. The settlement is 

contingent upon the proposed settlement being presented and approved in an open 

meeting by the Governing Board for the Defendant Maricopa County Community College 

District (“District”). The District is trying to get the matter on the Governing Board’s 

August 14, 2016 meeting agenda. The parties expect within sixty (60) days of today 

(September 17, 2018) the proposed settlement can be acted upon by the Governing Board 

and, if the agreement is approved, then the settlement will be executed and fully 

Case 2:18-cv-00377-SPL Document 40 Filed 07/20/18 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

performed including this Court being presented a stipulation for dismissal with prejudice

of this action, each party to bear their own attorney’s fees and costs. If the proposed 

settlement is not approved, the parties will notify this Court and submit a joint stipulation 

for resetting the deadlines in this Court’s scheduling order.

Plaintiff’s counsel has reviewed and approved this notice of conditional settlement.

DATED: _July 20, 2018.

UDALL SHUMWAY PLC

/s/ David R. Schwartz 

David R. Schwartz 

1138 North Alma School Road

Suite 101

Mesa, AZ 85201

Attorneys for Defendants Maricopa County

Community College District, Wise and Miranda

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on July 20, 2018, I electronically filed the attached document 

using ECF for filing and transmitted the document through ECF to the following 

registered ECF users:

Israel G. Torres

James E. Barton, II

Saman Golestan

TORRES LAW GROUP, PLLC

2239 W. Baseline Rd.

Tempe, AZ 85283

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

/s/ Kimberly Kershner

5229412.1

109883.022

Case 2:18-cv-00377-SPL Document 40 Filed 07/20/18 Page 2 of 2
#### Richard MING, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.

No. 68855.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

March 26, 1996.

Douglas R. Hoff, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, Kurt U. Schaefer, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and KAROHL and GRIMM, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals the denial, without an evi-dentiary hearing, of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous, and an extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
9910194.1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Georgia A. Staton, Bar #004863

Ravi V. Patel, Bar #030184

JONES, SKELTON & HOCHULI P.L.C.

40 N. Central Avenue, Suite 2700

Phoenix, Arizona 85004

Telephone: (602) 263-1738

Fax: (602) 200-7859

gstaton@jshfirm.com

rpatel@jshfirm.com

Attorneys for Defendants City of Phoenix, an 

Arizona Municipal Corporation; Antonio 

Tarango; Officer Oswald Grenier; Officer 

Kevin McGowan; Officer Jason Hobe; Officer 

Ronaldo Canilao; Officer David Head; Officer 

Susan Heimbinger; Officer James Clark; 

Officer Dennis Lerous; Officer Ryan Nielson; 

Officer Steven Wong; and Doe Supervisors 1- 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Mussalina Muhaymin as Personal 

Representative of the Estate of 

Muhammad Abdul Muhaymin Jr.,

Plaintiff,

v.

City of Phoenix, an Arizona Municipal 

Corporation; Antonio Tarango; Officer 

Oswald Grenier; Officer Kevin 

McGowan; Officer Jason Hobe; Officer 

Ronaldo Canilao; Officer David Head; 

Officer Susan Heimbinger; Officer James 

Clark; Officer Dennis Lerous; Officer 

Ryan Nielson; Officer Steven Wong; and 

Doe Supervisors 1-5,

Defendants.

No. 17-cv-04565-PHX-DLR

Unopposed Motion to Withdraw 

Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions 

[Doc. 335]

(Assigned to the Honorable

Douglas L. Rayes)

Defendants move to withdraw their Notice of Violations of Ariz. R. Prof. 

Cond. E.R. 4.2 & 3.6, and Local Rule of Civil Procedure 83.8 and Motion for Sanctions 

[Doc. 335], which is presently set for oral argument on November 15, 2021, and to vacate 

the hearing. 
2

9910194.1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Counsel undersigned have conferred with counsel for Plaintiff and Plaintiff 

does not oppose this motion. A proposed order is attached hereto. 

DATED this 12th day of November, 2021.

JONES, SKELTON & HOCHULI, P.L.C.

By/s/ Georgia A. Staton

Georgia A. Staton

Ravi V. Patel

40 N. Central Avenue, Suite 2700

Phoenix, Arizona 85004

Attorneys for Defendants City of Phoenix, 

an Arizona Municipal Corporation; 

Antonio Tarango; Officer Oswald Grenier; 

Officer Kevin McGowan; Officer Jason 

Hobe; Officer Ronaldo Canilao; Officer 

David Head; Officer Susan Heimbinger; 

Officer James Clark; Officer Dennis 

Lerous; Officer Ryan Nielson; Officer 

Steven Wong; and Doe Supervisors 1-5
3

9910194.1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 12th day of November, 2021, I caused the 

foregoing document to be filed electronically with the Clerk of Court through the CM/ECF 

System for filing; and served on counsel of record via the Court’s CM/ECF system.

/s/ Lisa Drapeau
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 111 (Friday, June 7, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 29107]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14429]



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


DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institute of Mental Health; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting of the National Institute of Mental Health Initial Review 
Group:

    Agenda/Purpose: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Committee Name: Mental Health Small Business Research Review 
Committee.
    Date: June 24-June 25, 1996.
    Time: 8:30 a.m.
    Place: Chevy Chase Holiday Inn, 5520 Wisconsin Avenue, Chevy 
Chase, MD 20815.
    Contact Person: Richard Johnson, Parklawn Building, Room 9C-18, 
5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, Telephone: 301-443-1367.
    The meeting will be closed in accordance with the provisions set 
forth in secs. 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5, U.S.C. 
Applications and/or proposals and the discussions could reveal 
confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable 
material and personal information concerning individuals associated 
with the applications and/or proposals, the disclosure of which 
would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Numbers 93.242, 
93.281, 93.282)

    Dated: June 1, 1996.
Susan K. Feldman,
Committee Management Officer, NIH.
[FR Doc. 96-14429 Filed 6-6-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M