alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Mantra Venture Group Ltd.: Exhibit 10.1 - Filed by newsfilecorp.com






For release at 1:15 PM PST 

Mantra Announces Successful Capital Raise

April 29, 2014

Burnaby, BC–Mantra Venture Group (OTCQB: MVTG) and its
subsidiary, Mantra Energy Alternatives, have announced a successful round of
raising capital. Through private placements and the exercising of warrants
during a targeted campaign over the past two months, Mantra has raised
approximately $1.7 million USD. 

“We are very pleased with this round of capital raising, and
are expecting to continue to be successful on this front in the coming months,”
said Mantra CEO Larry Kristof. “This funding will allow us to move forward with
the activities that will propel Mantra to the next level.”

The capital raised will be used to support Mantra’s research
and business development activities, broaden Mantra’s patent portfolio, and
settle outstanding debts. Activities that have already been initiated include
the final design and construction of Mantra’s ERC pilot plant, the development
of a prototype MRFC fuel cell for transportation applications, and the filing of
several patent applications based on novel research performed over the past
year.

About Mantra Venture Group

Mantra Venture Group Ltd. (OTCQB: MVTG) is a clean technology
incubator that takes innovative emerging technologies and moves them towards
commercialization. The Company, through its subsidiary Mantra Energy
Alternatives, is currently developing two ground breaking electrochemical
technologies designed to make reducing greenhouse gas emissions profitable, ERC
(Electro-Reduction of Carbon Dioxide) and MRFC (Mixed-Reactant Fuel Cell).

ERC is a form of “carbon capture and utilization” (CCU) that
converts the polluting greenhouse gas carbon dioxide into useful, valuable
products including formic acid and formate salts. By utilizing clean
electricity, the process offers the potential for an industrial plant to reduce
emissions while generating a salable product and a profit.

The MRFC is an unconventional fuel cell that uses a mixture of
fuel and oxidant, thereby greatly reducing the complexity and cost of the fuel
cell system. Ideal for portable applications, the MRFC is cheaper, lighter, and
more compact than conventional fuel cell technologies.

Follow Mantra on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/mantraenergy

For more information go to: http://www.mantraventuregroup.com










	
Investor Relations: John Williams
	
	
(604) 495-1766 (Canada)
	
	
(502) 214-5932 (USA)
	
	
mantraenergy@aberdeencap.com
	
	 

	
	
Company Contact: (604) 560-1503
	
	
info@mantraenergy.com
	
	
http://www.mantraventuregroup.com
	



Forward-looking statements: Except for the historical information contained herein, the matters discussed in this press release are forward-looking statements. Actual results may differ materially from those described in forward-looking
statements and are subject to risks and uncertainties. See Mantra Venture Group’s filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, which identify specific factors that may cause actual results or events to differ materially from those
described in forward-looking statements.
#### The Arlington Company, Appellant, v. The Empire City Fire Insurance Company, Respondent.

Judgment and order affirmed on 116 Appellate Division, 459. Scott and Houghton, JJ., dissented.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-03-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-29-2000
<CASH>                                           1,076
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,927
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     85,630
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                90,747
<PP&E>                                          69,765
<DEPRECIATION>                                  36,037
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 124,630
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           56,232
<BONDS>                                         12,773
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,830
<OTHER-SE>                                      41,908
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   124,630
<SALES>                                        152,947
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               152,947
<CGS>                                           99,933
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   99,933
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,167
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,100
<INCOME-TAX>                                       484
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             10,616
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                          972
<NET-INCOME>                                    11,588
<EPS-BASIC>                                       2.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.96


</TABLE>
#### Charley JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WYATT LUMBER CO., Inc., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 5915.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

Nov. 3, 1939.

Wood & Wood, of Leesville, for appellant.

J. S. Pickett, of Many,, for appellee.

TALIAFERRO, Judge.

This appeal was consolidated for argument with case No. 5916, entitled Edward Griffith v. Wyatt Lumber Co., Inc., 193 So. 257, on the docket of this court decided today.

The issues tendered by the appeal and the questions submitted therein for decision are identical with those in said case No. 5916. And for the reasons assigned in the opinion rendered therein, this appeal is dismissed at plaintiff’s cost. The case is remanded for further proceedings.
#### F. Egerton Webb and Howard Prall, Plaintiffs, *v.*Susan Day Parker and Eliot Norton, Defendants.

*Lien*— *enforcement*.

Motion to amend judgment.

Per Curiam:

The affidavits submitted on the present motion leave it somewhat doubtful whether or not the appellant Morton is entitled to enforce his lien as against the plaintiffs. The necessary findings to determine this question were not incorporated in the decision. Although, as between plaintiffs and the defendant Parker, we entertain no doubt as to the correctness of the conclusions arrived at by the court below, it cannot be finally determined what judgment should be entered until it is ascertained whether the appellant Morton is entitled, in order to protect his lien, t¿ enter a judgment in favor of the defendant Parker. It follows that, notwithstanding the correctness of the decision upon the principal question in the case, the judgment as entered must be reversed and a new trial granted, without costs in this court. Present — Ingraham, McLaughlin, Laughlin, Clarke and Scott. Jj. Judgment reversed and new trial granted, without costs in this court. Settle order on notice.
Filed 1/15/19 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2019 ND 8

In the Interest of D.M.W., a child

Jacqueline A. Gaddie, 

Assistant State’s Attorney, Petitioner and Appellee

v.

D.M.W., a child, J.L.M. 

a/k/a J.L.C., mother, Respondents

 and

D.J.W., father, Respondent and Appellant

No. 20180413

Appeal from the Juvenile Court of Grand Forks County, Northeast Central

Judicial District, the Honorable John A. Thelen, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Jacqueline A. Gaddie, Assistant State’s Attorney, Grand Forks, ND, for

petitioner and appellee; submitted on brief.

Kyle A. Markwardt, Grand Forks, ND, for respondent and appellant; submitted

on brief.
Interest of D.M.W.

No. 20180413

Per Curiam.

[¶1] D.W. appeals from a juvenile court order terminating his parental rights to

D.M.W. On appeal, D.W. argues there was not clear and convincing evidence to

support termination of his parental rights because the petitioner failed to prove

deprivation is likely to continue, the juvenile court improperly found D.W. abandoned

D.M.W, and the juvenile court erred by finding reasonable efforts were made to

reunify the family. The juvenile court terminated parental rights based on several

findings, including finding D.M.W. is subjected to aggravated circumstances under

N.D.C.C. § 27-20-02(3)(f)(2) due to the length of D.W.’s incarceration. We conclude

the juvenile court’s finding D.M.W. is subjected to aggravated circumstances is

supported by clear and convincing evidence, is not clearly erroneous, and

independently supports the termination of D.W.’s parental rights. In Interest of Z.B.,

2018 ND 6, ¶ 1, 905 N.W.2d 561 (“Any one of these three findings provides adequate

and independent grounds for termination.”). A finding of aggravated circumstances

negates the requirement for reasonable efforts of reunification. N.D.C.C. § 27-20-

32.2(4)(a) (“Reasonable efforts . . . are not required if . . . a parent has subjected a

child to aggravated circumstances.”). Because the juvenile court’s finding relating

to aggravating circumstances is not clearly erroneous, we summarily affirm under

N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (7).

[¶2] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Lisa Fair McEvers

Daniel J. Crothers

Jerod E. Tufte

Jon J. Jensen

1
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 13-2411

___________________________

Miguel Lopez Estrada

lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner

v.

Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General of the United States

lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent

____________

Petition for Review of an Order of the

 Board of Immigration Appeals

____________

 Submitted: February 14, 2014

Filed: February 26, 2014

[Unpublished]

____________

Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Miguel Lopez Estrada, a citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an order of

the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), upholding an immigration judge’s decision

that Estrada was ineligible for adjustment of status. After careful review, we find no

basis for reversal. In particular, we conclude that the BIA’s finding that Estrada had

falsely represented himself as a United States citizen in order to obtain employment
was supported by substantial evidence on the administrative record as a whole, and

that the BIA properly applied the law to its findings in deciding Estrada was ineligible

for adjustment of status. See Hashmi v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d 700, 702-04 (8th Cir.

2008) (standard of review; alien was inadmissible and therefore was ineligible for

adjustment of status where alien checked “citizen or national” box on Form I-9 for

purposes of falsely representing himself as “a citizen” to secure employment; finding

that alien had falsely represented himself as citizen was supported by evidence that

he had falsely told his employer he was born in United States). Accordingly, we deny

the petition for review. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

-2-
#### The People of the State of New York v. Theodore Bingham and Another. Anna Bacouby v. United States Fidelity Company. George H. Montross v. Michael Levenson. Hudson Companies v. John Breimer.

Applications for leave to appeal to Appellate Division denied, with ten dollars costs in each case. Orders signed.
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 832

To establish limits on wage continuation and severance benefits for Amtrak

employees displaced by a discontinuance of service, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 6, 1995

Mr. BARTON of Texas (for himself, Mr. HEFLEY, Mr. SAM JOHNSON of

Texas, Mr. COMBEST, Mr. CUNNINGHAM, Mr. SCHAEFFER, Mr.

HOEKSTRA, Mr. MCCOLLUM, Mr. STENHOLM, Mr. HUTCHINSON, Mr.

SMITH of Texas, Mr. MILLER of Florida, Mr. LARGENT, Mr.

THORNBERRY, Mr. LATHAM, Mr. HANCOCK, Mr. SHADEGG, Mr. LIVINGSTON, and Mr. BREWSTER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

A BILL

To establish limits on wage continuation and severance benefits for Amtrak employees displaced by a discontinuance

of service, 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. SERVICE DISCONTINUANCE.

4 Section 24706(c) of title 49, United States Code, is

5 amended by adding at the end the following new para6 graphs:
2

•HR 832 IH

1 ‘‘(7) Notwithstanding any arrangement in effect be2 fore the date of enactment of this paragraph, no employee

3 of Amtrak whose employment is terminated as a result

4 of a discontinuance of intercity rail passenger service shall

5 receive any wage continuation or severance benefit in ex6 cess of 6 months pay. This paragraph shall not affect the

7 obligations of rail carriers under section 11347 of this

8 title.

9 ‘‘(8) Notwithstanding any arrangement in effect be10 fore the date of enactment of this paragraph, Amtrak may

11 require an employee whose position is eliminated as a re12 sult of a discontinuance of intercity rail passenger service

13 to transfer to any vacant position for which the employee

14 can be made qualified on any part of Amtrak’s system.

15 If such transfer requires a change in residence or seniority

16 district, the employee shall choose—

17 ‘‘(A) to transfer to the position and be covered

18 by the collective bargaining agreement applicable to

19 the seniority district to which he is transferred; or

20 ‘‘(B) to voluntarily furlough himself at his

21 home location and receive protective benefits not in

22 excess of the amount authorized under paragraph

23 (7).

24 For purposes of this paragraph, a transfer shall be consid25 ered to require a change in residence if the new employ-
3

•HR 832 IH

1 ment is more than 30 miles from the employee’s place of

2 residence and is farther from that residence than was the

3 former work location.’’.

Æ
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed September 29, 2021

. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D21

- 1191 Lower Tribunal No s

. F18

- 12351, 20

- 2292

________________ 

### Fernando A. Irizarry , Appellant,

vs. 

### The State of Florida , Appellee.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami

- Dade County, Thomas J. Rebull , Judge. Fernando A. Irizarry , in proper person

. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, C.J., and GORDO and LOBREE , JJ. PER CURIAM.2 Fernando Irizarry appeals the dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus by the Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court in Miami

- Dade County. Because Irizarry is incarcerated in Desoto County and the petition raises issues concerning his incarceration, w e affirm the trial court’s order dismissing the petition without prejudice to Irizarry refiling it in the proper venue and in the proper form. See Stokes v. State , 3 So. 3d 425, 425 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (“Th e circuit court of the county in which a defendant is incarcerated has jurisdiction to consider a petition for writ of habeas corpus when the claims raised in the petition concern issues regarding his incarceration .” (quoting Brinson v. State , 988 So. 2d 665, 665

– 66 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) )); Cooper v. State , 970 So. 2d 368 , 368 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) ; Johnson v. State , 947 So. 2d 1192, 1193 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007). Affirmed.
<Page>

                             P & F INDUSTRIES, INC.

                                  EXHIBIT 99.1


                            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 P&F Industries, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I Richard A.
Horowitz, Chief Executive Officer 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:

      (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.


/s/ Richard A. Horowitz


Richard A. Horowitz
Chief Executive Officer
August 14, 2002
18437.

#### Wright, Executor, *et al. v.*Mayor &c. of Americus *et al.*

Argued January 11, 1954

Decided February 9, 1954.

*Everett & Everett, Fort & Fort,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Dykes, Dykes & Marshall, H. B. Williams,*contra.

Candler, Justice.

In this case the trial judge refused to grant a temporary-injunction, and the exception is to that judgment only. The original plaintiffs and the intervenors sought an injunction to prevent the construction of a private driveway across a described strip of land fifteen feet wide, title for the land being in dispute between the parties. From the evidence the parties introduced on the interlocutory hearing, it appears without any conflict that the driveway complained of had been completely constructed before this litigation was filed. This being true, refusal to grant the interlocutory injunctive relief sought was not error. Code § 55-110; *Georgia Pacific Ry.*v. *Mayor &c. of Douglasville,*75 *Ga.*828; *Bigham*v. *Yundt,*158 *Ga.*600 (2) (123 S. E. 870); *Shurley*v. *Black,*156 *Ga.*683 (2) (119 S. E. 618); *Beid*v. *McRae,*190 *Ga.*323 (2) (9 S. E. 2d 176); *Blackwell*v. *Farrar,*209 *Ga.*420 (73 S. E. 2d 203).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Sentry Petroleum Ltd. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended February 28, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Raj Rajeswaran, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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 Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)

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

Dated this 26th day of May, 2009.

| |     |                                                           
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------
| |     |                                                           
| | BY: | RAJ RAJESWARANRaj Rajeswaran, 
Principal Executive Officer
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6178 

To prohibit the Department of Defense from discharging or withholding 

pay or benefits from members of the National Guard based on COVID– 

19 vaccination status. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 8, 2021 

Mrs. BICE of Oklahoma (for herself, Mr. LUCAS, Mr. MULLIN, and Mr. 

HERN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To prohibit the Department of Defense from discharging 

or withholding pay or benefits from members of the 

National Guard based on COVID–19 vaccination status. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON DISCHARGING OR WITH4 HOLDING PAY OR BENEFITS FROM NATIONAL 

5 GUARD MEMBERS BASED ON COVID–19 VAC6 CINATION STATUS. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Defense shall 

8 not, based on whether or not a member of the National 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6178 IH

1 Guard has received a COVID–19 vaccine, take any of the 

2 following actions: 

3 (1) Involuntarily discharge or discipline the 

4 member under chapter 47 of title 10, United States 

5 Code (the Uniform Code of Military Justice). 

6 (2) Withhold pay or benefits from the member. 

7 (3) Prohibit the member from participating in 

8 training or using equipment funded by amounts ap9 propriated by an Act of Congress. 

10 (b) PAY AND BENEFITS INCLUDED.—The pay and 

11 benefits referred to in subsection (a)(2) include the fol12 lowing: 

13 (1) Basic pay and special pay under title 37, 

14 United States Code, or title 10, United States Code. 

15 (2) Medical and dental care under chapter 55 

16 of title 10, United States Code. 

17 (3) Transitional health benefits under section 

18 1145 of such title. 

19 (4) Commissary and exchange benefits under 

20 section 1146 of such title. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Rasheed Pope, Appellant.

[676 NYS2d 627]

Appeal by the defendant from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ferdinand, J.), rendered August 3, 1994, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, assault in the second degree (two counts), and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, under Indictment No. 13911/93, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence, and (2) a judgment of the same court, also rendered August 3, 1994, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, under Indictment No. 4288/93, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal under Indictment No. 13911/93 brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

The defendant’s challenge to the admission into evidence of three photographs of the victim’s wounds is without merit as the photos were probative as to essential elements of the robbery and assault counts, suggesting intent and force (see, *People v Stevens,*76 NY2d 833; *People v DeBerry,*234 AD2d 470). Similarly, the defendant’s challenges to the prosecutor’s *444summation are without merit. When the defendant attacked the credibility of the People’s witnesses in summation, he opened the door for the prosecutor to rehabilitate the credibility of those witnesses *(see, People v Salaman,*231 AD2d 464; *People v Long,*205 AD2d 804; *People v Russo,*201 AD2d 512, *affd*85 NY2d 872).

The defendant’s sentences are not excessive *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80). Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Sullivan and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.