alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
exhibit_10-15.htm








EXHIBIT 10.15








 


Fee Settlement Agreement


 


Recitals


 


AGREEMENT entered into this 20th day of August. 2013. by and between Seafarer Exploration Corp (the "Company"), and ClearTrust. LLC ("Transfer Agent").


 


WHERHAS, the Transfer Agent has incurred various reimbursable expenses resulting directly from acting as transfer agent for the Company, and the Company is obligated to reimburse the Transfer Agent for said expenses.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, the Company and Transfer Agent hereby agree to settle the amount owed to the Transfer Agent with shares of restricted stock. The parties hereto agree as fol lows:


 


1. Legal Expenses Owed


 


The transfer agent has incurred reimbursable expenses and invoiced the Company as detailed in the table below:


 



	
Date of Invoice to C ompan

	
Invoice Number

	
Amount

	
Reason for Invoice


	
6/5/ 13

	
2426

	
$978.00

	
Legal expenses related to "Eldred vs.


	  	  	  	
Seafarer" case


	
7/1/13

	
1533

	
$3.954.03

	

Legal expenses related to "Eldred vs.




	  	  	  	
Seafarer" case


	
8/8/13

	
2642

	
$798.74

	

Legal expenses related to "Eldred vs.




	  	  	  	
Seafarer" case


	  	
TOTAL

	
S5,730.77

	  





 


2. Issuance of Stock


 


The Company shall reimburse the Transfer Agent cashless with a non-refundable payment of 458,462 shares of restricted common stock of the Company. The Transfer Agent may sell the shares in the public marketplace in reliance on Rule 144 or negotiate the sale of the shares in a privately negotiated transaction. Regardless the manner of sale, the Transfer Agent must apply all proceeds gained by the sale of the shares to the open invoices listed in the table above. Should the Transfer Agent realize less proceeds than the total due in the table above, the Transfer Agent may request up to 400.000 additional shares of stock or a cash payment to cover  the  difference  in  the  amount owed.


 


5. Severability


 


In the event that any one or more provisions herein shall for any reason he held to be invalid. illegal or unenforceable in any respect. such invalidity, illegality or unenforceability shall not affect any other provision hereof.






  





1











  












6. Miscellaneous


 


 This Agreement (i) constitutes the entire agreement between the parties hereto with respect to the subject matter hereof and shall supersede all prior understandings and agreements as to such subject matter: (ii) may be amended or modified only by a writing executed by the party against whom enforcement is sought: (iii) shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the respective heirs. administrators. personal representatives. successors and assigns of the parties hereto: and (iv) shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of Florida.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF. the parties hereto have executed this Fee Settlement Agreement as of the date and year first above written.


 


CLEARTIRUST, LLC:


 


/s/ Kara Kennedy, Director











Kara Kennedy


 


 


SEAFARER EXPLORATION CORP.


 


/s/Kyle Kenndy 








Kyle Kenndy, Director


 


 


 


 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DALE MORGAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL

SECURITY,

Defendant.

 /

Case No.09-12140

Honorable Patrick J. Duggan

JUDGMENT

This matter having come before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary

Judgment and Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, and the Court having issued

an Opinion and Order on this date granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff’s motion

and denying Defendant’s motion,

IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that Judgment is entered in

favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant in that Defendant’s decision denying Plaintiff’s

application for Disability and Disability Insurance Benefits is REVERSED and the

matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner pursuant to Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C.

§ 405(g).

DATE: September 7, 2010 

s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to:

Kenneth D. Clayton, Esq.

AUSA Vanessa M. Mays

Magistrate Judge Michael Hluchaniuk
EXHIBIT 10.47
 MERCANTILE BANK CORPORATION
EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN OF 2002
 SECTION 1
PURPOSE OF PLAN
  SECTION 2
DEFINITIONS
  2.1 Employee
 2.2 Board
 2.3 Committee
 2.4 Common Stock
 2.5 Company
 2.6 Election Form
 2.7 Eligible Employees
 2.8 Fair Market Value
 2.9 Investment Sharebuilder Account
 2.10 Option Period
 2.11 Participant
 1




---



##### 



2.12 Payroll Deduction Account
 2.13 Permanent Disability Disability
 2.14 Plan
 2.15 Purchase Price
 2.16 Retirement
 2.17 Stock Purchase Date
 2.18 Subsidiary
 SECTION 3
ADMINISTRATION
 3.1 General.
 3.2 Indemnification of Committee Members.
 SECTION 4
STOCK SUBJECT TO THE PLAN
 4.1 Number of Shares of Common Stock.
 2




---



##### 



4.2 Adjustments.
 SECTION 5
ELIGIBILITY
  SECTION 6
PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
 6.1 Election Form; Changes to Election Form.
   6.2 Withdrawal.
  3




---



##### 



SECTION 7
PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS
 7.1 Payroll Deduction Account.
 7.2 Limits on Payroll Deductions.
 SECTION 8
PURCHASE AND SALE OF COMMON STOCK
 8.1 Purchase Price.
 8.2 Method of Purchase.
   8.3 Title of Accounts.
 8.4 Rights as a Shareholder.
 4




---



##### 



8.5 Sale of Shares.
 SECTION 9
RIGHTS ON DEATH, RETIREMENT OR PERMANENT DISABILITY
 9.1 Death.
 9.2 Retirement or Permanent Disability.
  SECTION 10
GENERAL PROVISIONS
 10.1 Rights Not Transferable.
 10.2 Amendment or Suspension of the Plan.
 10.3 Termination of the Plan.
 5




---



##### 



10.4 Governing Law; Compliance with Law.
 10.5 Not an Employment Contract.
 10.6 Effective Dates.
 10.7 Investment Intent.
 10.8 Severability.
 6
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.                  

###### Commission on Civil Rights

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and the regulations of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that a meeting of the Utah Advisory Committee will convene at 6 p.m. and adjourn at 8 p.m. (MST) on Wednesday, August 20, 2008 at the Hilton City Center, 255 South West Temple, Salt Lake City, UT 84101.

The purpose of the meeting is for the committee to discuss recent Commission and regional activities, discuss current civil rights issues in the state as well as issues raised during the forum on civil rights issues affecting American Indians in Utah (held Dec. 2006), and plan future activities.

Persons desiring additional information, or planning a presentation to the Committee, should contact Malee V. Craft, Director of the Rocky Mountain Regional Office, (303) 866-1040 (TDD 303-866-1049). Hearing-impaired persons who will attend the meeting and require the services of a sign language interpreter should contact the Regional Office at least ten (10) working days before the scheduled date of the meeting.

The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the Commission and FACA.

Dated in Washington, DC, July 31, 2008.

Christopher Byrnes,

Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit.

[FR Doc. E8-17980 Filed 8-5-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
EXHIBIT 21

LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

Name of 100% Owned Subsidiaries and Jurisdiction in Which Organized



|1. | FEI Technologies Inc. (Oregon)
|-- | ------------------------------



|2. | FEI Electron Optics International B.V. (Netherlands)
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------



|3. | FEI Deutschland GmbH (Germany)
|-- | ------------------------------



|4. | FEI Company Japan Ltd. (Japan)
|-- | ------------------------------



|5. | FEI Trading (Shanghai) Co. Ltd. (China)
|-- | ---------------------------------------



|6. | FEI Czech Republic s.r.o. (Czech Republic)
|-- | ------------------------------------------



|7. | FEI Hong Kong Co. Ltd. (Hong Kong)
|-- | ----------------------------------



|8. | FEI Company of U.S.A. (SE Asia) P.t.e. Ltd. (Singapore)
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------



|9. | FEI Italia S.r.l. (Italy)
|-- | -------------------------



|10. | FEI Electron Optics B.V. (Netherlands)
|--- | --------------------------------------



|11. | FEI France SAS (France)
|--- | -----------------------



|12. | FEI Europe B.V. (Netherlands)
|--- | -----------------------------



|13. | FEI UK Ltd. (United Kingdom)
|--- | ----------------------------



|14. | FEI Europe Ltd. (United Kingdom)
|--- | --------------------------------

Name of Subsidiaries less than
100% Owned



|1. | Charged Particle Beam Technology Latin America S.A. de C.V. (Mexico)
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | FEI Systems (Thailand) Company, Limited (Thailand)
|-- | --------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHER DIVISION

HON. PATRICK J.DUGGAN

CIVIL NO.09-11580

KATHLEEN HEARD,

Plaintiff(s),

-VQAR, LLC, ET.AL,

Defendant(s).

 /

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

At a session of said Court held in the

United States Courthouse,in the City of

Detroit, State of Michigan, on November 10, 2009.

PRESENT: THE HONORABLE PATRICK J.DUGGAN

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

The Court having received a Stipulation for Dismissal but no order having been 

presented; 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above-entitled case be, and hereby is 

DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to the stipulation of the parties filed November 9, 

2009.

s/Patrick J. Duggan 

Patrick J. Duggan

United States District Judge

Dated: November 10, 2009

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record

on November 10, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Marilyn Orem 

Case Manager

 

2:09-cv-11580-PJD-DAS Doc # 9 Filed 11/10/09 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 27
f10k2013ex10vii_cmgholdings.htm


Exhibit 10.7





 



As of September 14, 2013







CMG Holdings Group, Inc


333 Hudson Street, Suite 303


New York, NY 10013


 


Attn: Jeffrey Devlin, CEO


 


Dear Mr. Devlin:


 


AudioEye, Inc. (“AudioEye”) and CMG Holdings Group, Inc. (“CMG Holdings”) are party to that certain Call Option Agreement (the “Call Option Agreement”), dated as of August 1, 2013, as amended as of August 30, 2013.







In consideration of the mutual promises herein contained, and other good and valuable consideration, and intending to be legally bound, AudioEye and CMG Holdings hereby agree that Section 9.2 of the Call Option Agreement is amended and restated in its entirety as follows:







“9.2           Unless otherwise provided herein, this Agreement shall automatically terminate at 5:00 P.M. Tucson time on that date which is ninety-nine (99) calendar days from the Effective Date.”







This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties and their successors and permitted assigns. This Agreement may be executed in two counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. This Agreement shall be governed by and interpreted according to the laws of the State of Delaware, without giving effect to the choice of law provisions of such State.  Any actions for enforcement of this Agreement or interpretation of any of the provision of this Agreement or otherwise arising out of or relating to this Agreement shall be brought only in the state courts of or in the federal courts located in Pima County, State of Arizona.  The parties agree to submit to the jurisdiction of such courts. The parties herein waive trial by jury and agree to submit to the personal jurisdiction and venue of a court of subject matter jurisdiction located in Pima County, State of Arizona. Each party shall take such further action and execute and deliver such further documents as may be necessary or appropriate in order to carry out the provisions and purposes of this Agreement.


 


[Remainder of page intentionally left blank; signature page follows.]


 



University of Arizona Science and Technology Park


9070 S Rita Road, Suite 1450


Tucson, AZ 85747


866.331.5324 • Fax 520.844.2989


 




 





 











 








 





 


If you are in agreement with the foregoing, please sign and return one copy of this Agreement to us.







Very truly yours,







AudioEye, Inc.


 




	
By: 

	 	 
	 	Name:	 
	 	Title:	 












Agreed to as of this 14th day of September, 2013:







CMG Holdings Group, Inc.


 





	
By: 

	 	 
	 	Name:	 
	 	Title:	 











University of Arizona Science and Technology Park


9070 S Rita Road, Suite 1450


Tucson, AZ 85747


866.331.5324 • Fax 520.844.2989


 


 


2
Exhibit 10.31

[DOTHILL LETTERHEAD]

March 28,
2001

Delivery: By Hand

Mark Mays
24 Tall Pines Dr.
Weston, CT 06883

Re:
Termination of Employment from Dot Hill Systems, Corp. ("Dot Hill")

Dear
Mark:

This
letter confirms your termination of employment from Dot Hill.



1

---



Please
sign one copy of this letter and return to me in the envelope provided. If you have questions, I can be reached at (212) 989-4455 or e-mail at
merry.ferraro@dothill.com.

Sincerely

/s/
Meredith Ferraro

Meredith
Ferraro
Human Resources Manager

Mark
A. Mays 3/30/01
Mark Mays

2

---

QuickLinks
canso_ex103.htm


EXHIBIT 10.3


 


Written Description of Oral Contract dated November 12, 2013, by and Between Canso Enterprises Ltd. and Neil Pettigrew.


 


 


On November 12, 2013, Canso Enterprises Ltd., a Nevada corporation, entered into an oral contract with Neil Pettigrew to purchase that certain geological evaluation report titled, “Arrow River Property; Property Review Report,” dated November 12, 2013, and all information contained therein for a purchase price of $5,650.  The geological report summarizes the results of the history of the exploration of the mineral claims, the regional and local geology of the mineral claims and the mineralization and the geological formations identified as a result of the prior exploration. The geological report also gives conclusions regarding potential mineralization of the mineral claims and recommends a further geological exploration program on the mineral claims.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3768 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3768

   To designate a United States Post Office to be located in Groton, 
 Massachusetts, as the ``Augusta `Gusty' Hornblower United States Post 
                               Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 10, 1996

  Mr. Blute introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Government Reform and Oversight

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To designate a United States Post Office to be located in Groton, 
 Massachusetts, as the ``Augusta `Gusty' Hornblower United States Post 
                               Office''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The United States Post Office to be located at 80 Boston Road in 
Groton, Massachusetts, shall be designated and known as the ``Augusta 
`Gusty' Hornblower United States Post Office''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the United States Post Office referred 
to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Augusta 
`Gusty' Hornblower United States Post Office''.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

THE ESTATE OF

RICHARD DONALD PFISTER, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 09-10981

Honorable Patrick J. Duggan

COUNTY OF MACOMB, MARK HACKEL,

CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES,

BEVERLY PUCHOVEN, JAMES HARRIS,

CHRISTOPHER COSTANZA, DAVID

WHITE, MARIA BALSAMA, SCOTT JONES,

SGT. PATRICK JOHNSON, NURSE

ANGELA VETTRAINO, NURSE KATHY

HAWKINS,

Defendants.

____________________________/

JUDGMENT

This is a wrongful death action arising out of the death of Richard Donald Pfister,

Jr. (“Mr. Pfister”) during his incarceration at the Macomb County Jail. Mr. Pfister’s

estate has brought claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that the individual

Defendants were deliberately indifferent to Mr. Pfister’s medical needs in violation of the

Eighth Amendment and that Macomb County and/or CMS maintained a policy or custom

that caused the Eighth Amendment violation. Macomb County and its employees named

as defendants previously filed a motion for summary judgment, which this Court granted

in an opinion and order entered on October 30, 2009. In an opinion and order issued on

this date, the Court granted a motion for summary judgment filed by CMS and its

2:09-cv-10981-PJD-PJK Doc # 39 Filed 01/19/10 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 669
employees named as defendants.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that Plaintiff’s Complaint is

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

DATE: January 19, 2010 _____________________________

s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to:

Daniel G. Romano, Esq.

Brian Richtarcik, Esq.

Jami E. Leach, Esq.

2:09-cv-10981-PJD-PJK Doc # 39 Filed 01/19/10 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 670
#### Ex parte Jerry HOLDEN, Appellant.

No. 01-89-00503-CR.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (1st Dist.).

Aug. 3, 1989.

William J. Rice Jr., William J. Rice, Jr., *&*Associates, Houston, for appellant.

John B. Holmes, Jr., Dist. Atty., J. Harvey Hudson, Joe Magliolo, Asst. Dist. At-tys., Houston.

Before DUGGAN, HUGHES and SAM BASS, JJ.

OPINION

SAM BASS, Justice.

On September 6, 1988, appellant was indicted for possession of a prohibited weapon on school premises (the “weapons charge”). The trial court set appellant’s bond in the weapons charge at $4,000. While out on bond, appellant was indicted for the felony charge of retaliation. Bond was set at $100,000. Appellant filed an application for writ of habeas corpus, asking the court to reduce his bond to $5,000. A hearing was held on May 10, 1989, and the judge reduced appellant’s bond to $50,-000. Appellant perfected this appeal and asserts the trial court erred in setting an unreasonable and excessive bond.

Appellant has the burden of proving that the bail set is excessive. *Ex parte Rubac,*611 S.W.2d 848, 849 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1981). Where bail has been reduced upon a habeas corpus proceeding, before a complaint can be heard on appeal regarding the amount fixed, the petitioner must show that he has made an effort to furnish bail in that amount. *Ex parte Stembridge,*472 S.W.2d 155 (Tex.Crim.App.1971); *Ex parte Willman,*695 S.W.2d 752, 754 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1985, no pet.). In the present case, while appellant demonstrated that he made several unsuccessful attempts to make a $100,-000 bond, there is no evidence that appellant attempted to make a $50,000 bond and that such attempt failed.

In setting bail, Tex.Code Crim.P. Ann. art. 17.15(5) (Vernon Supp.1989) permits the trial court to consider the future safety of the victim. Appellant is alleged to have committed the offense of retaliation, specifically, threatening to murder Mark E. Jamison, the complaining witness in the State’s weapons charge against appellant. When the trial judge considered appellant’s application, the safety of the complaining witness was of paramount concern.

Appellant has not met the burden of showing the bail set is excessive. Appellant’s point of error is overruled. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s denial of habeas corpus relief.
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4109

To extend the authority for certain export programs, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 18, 1996

Mr. ROTH introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on International Relations

A BILL

To extend the authority for certain export programs, and

for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Export Programs Ex5 tension Act of 1996’’.

6 TITLE I—OVERSEAS PRIVATE

7 INVESTMENT CORPORATION

8 SEC. 101. CEILING ON INVESTMENT INSURANCE.

9 Section 235(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961

10 (22 U.S.C. 2195(a)) is amended—
2

•H 4109 IH

1 (1) by striking paragraph (1) and all that fol2 lows through the end of subparagraph (A) of para3 graph (2) and inserting the following:

4 ‘‘(1) MAXIMUM CONTINGENT LIABILITY.—The

5 maximum contingent liability outstanding at any one

6 time pursuant to insurance issued under section

7 234(a) and financing issued under subsections (b)

8 and (c) of section 234 shall not exceed

9 $23,000,000,000.’’; and

10 (2) by striking ‘‘(B) Subject’’ and inserting

11 ‘‘(2) SUBSIDY COST.—Subject’’.

12 SEC. 102. ISSUING AUTHORITY.

13 Section 235(a)(3) of the Foreign Assistance Act of

14 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2195(a)(3)) is amended by striking

15 ‘‘1996’’ and inserting ‘‘1997’’.

16 SEC. 103. TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.

17 Section 234 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961

18 (22 U.S.C. 2194) is amended—

19 (1) by amending paragraph (3) of subsection

20 (a) to read as follows:

21 ‘‘(3) Not more than $1,350,000,000 of investment in22 surance may be issued to a single investor.’’;

23 (2) in subsection (b) in the last proviso by

24 striking ‘‘15 per centum’’ and all that follows

25 through the end of the sentence and inserting
3

•H 4109 IH

1 ‘‘$1,425,000,000 of investment guaranties may be

2 issued to a single investor.’’; and

3 (3) in subsection (f) in the next to last sentence

4 by striking ‘‘an amount equal to the amount author5 ized for the maximum contingent liability outstand6 ing at any one time under section 235(a)(1)’’ and

7 inserting ‘‘$13,500,000,000’’.

8 TITLE II—TRADE AND

9 DEVELOPMENT AGENCY

10 SEC. 201. TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT AGENCY AUTHORIZA11 TION.

12 Section 661(f)(1)(A) of the Foreign Assistance Act

13 of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2191(f)(1)(A)) is amended to read as

14 follows:

15 ‘‘(1) AUTHORIZATION.—(A) There are author16 ized to be appropriated for purposes of this section,

17 in addition to funds otherwise available for such pur18 poses, $40,000,000 for fiscal 1997.’’.

19 TITLE III—EXPORT PROMOTION

20 PROGRAMS

21 SEC. 301. EXPORT PROMOTION AUTHORIZATION.

22 Section 202 of the Export Administration Amend23 ments Act of 1985 (15 U.S.C. 4052) is amended to read

24 as follows:
4

•H 4109 IH

1 ‘‘SEC. 202. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

2 ‘‘There are authorized to be appropriated to the De3 partment of Commerce to carry out export promotion pro4 grams $250,000,000 for fiscal year 1997.’’.

Æ