alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ex10-4.htm


EXHIBIT 10.4


 


FORM OF AMENDMENT TO 9.625% SENIOR UNSECURED PROMISSORY NOTE OF ARMADA OIL, INC., DATED MARCH 29, 2013, ISSUED TO ___________


 


This Amendment (this “Amendment”) to 9.625% Senior Unsecured Promissory Note of Armada Oil, Inc., dated March 29, 2013 (the “Note”), is entered into as of the ____ day of May 2014, by and between Armada Oil, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), and the holder of the Note.  Unless otherwise defined herein, capitalized terms used in this Amendment shall have the meaning given to them in the Note.







For good and valuable consideration the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Company and the Holder agree as follows:








	
  

	
1.

	
The unpaid Principal Amount of the Note, along with accrued and unpaid interest, shall be due and payable on May 30, 2015 (the “New Maturity Date”), and interest shall continue to accrue on the unpaid principal balance of the Note at an annual rate of 9.625% and shall be paid quarterly with any remaining accrued interest payable on the New Maturity Date.







 



	
  

	
2.

	
Except as modified herein, all of the other terms of the Note remain as is.







 


 [Signature Page Follows]


 




  





  











  






 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been executed by the Company and the holder of the Note as of the date first written above.


 



	  	
ARMADA OIL, INC.


	  	  
	  	  
	  	
By:                                                                                     


	  	
Name:         Randy M. Griffin


	  	
Title:           Chief Executive Officer


	  	  



 



	  	

HOLDER




	 	 
	  	  
	  	  
	  	
By:                                                                                   


	  	
Name:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 01-4643

AUBREY T. MOORE, III,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg.

Irene M. Keeley, Chief District Judge.

(CR-01-7)

Submitted: January 16, 2002

Decided: February 28, 2002

Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part and vacated in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Christopher B. Denson, STEPTOE & JOHNSON, Clarksburg, West

Virginia, for Appellant. Patrick M. Flatley, United States Attorney,

Paul T. Camilletti, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West

Virginia, for Appellee. 
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Aubrey Moore, III appeals from his sixty-three month sentence and

court-ordered child support payments imposed following his guilty

plea to one count of possession of a machine gun in violation of 18

U.S.C.A. § 922(o) (West 2000). Moore challenges the constitutionality of 26 U.S.C.A. § 5845(b) (West 2000), which defines "machine

gun" for the purposes of § 922(o). Our review of the record discloses

no reversible error with regard to the conviction. However, the district

court erred in requiring payment of past child support obligations as

a part of the sentence. Therefore we affirm Moore’s conviction and

sixty-three month sentence, but vacate the district court’s order to pay

child support. 

We find that the definition of a receiver of a machine gun under

§ 5845(b) satisfies Due Process. Vagueness challenges not threatening First Amendment interests are examined as applied to the facts of

the case. Maynard v. Cartwright, 486 U.S. 356, 361 (1988). According to the Firearms Technology Report, openings for the bolt handle

slot, magazine port, ejection port, and sear had been cut out of a pipe

seized from Moore’s residence. Although the openings had not been

filed down to final specifications, the slots and openings were properly located and consistent with the slots and openings on a Sten

machine gun. Section 5845(b) includes any part designed and

intended for use in converting a weapon into a machine gun. Moore’s

part is clearly a receiver within the statutory definition. 

Regarding Moore’s claim that he was improperly sentenced, we

find no statutory authority to impose back child support payments for

this offense and vacate this portion of the district court’s order. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED IN PART

2 UNITED STATES v. MOORE
**Exhibit
      32.2**





**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 CenterStaging Corp. on Form 10-KSB for
      the
      fiscal year ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Howard
      Livingston, the Chief Financial Officer of CenterStaging, Inc., does hereby
      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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and the results of operations of the Company as of
      and
      for the periods covered by the Report.







Dated:
      September 28, 2006





/s/
      Howard Livingston


Chief
      Financial Officer
|  | Principal Officers:Keith M. Braaten, P. Eng.President & CEOJodi L. Anhorn, P. Eng.Executive Vice President & COO Officers / Vice Presidents:Terry L. Aarsby, P. Eng.Caralyn P. Bennett, P. Eng.Leonard L. Herchen, P. Eng.Myron J. Hladyshevsky, P. Eng.Bryan M. Joa, P. Eng.Mark Jobin, P. Geol.John E. Keith, P. Eng.John H. Stilling, P. Eng.Douglas R. Sutton, P. Eng.James H. Willmon, P. Eng. |
|--|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Yours truly,                       |   |
|------------------------------------|--------|
|                               |   |
| GLJ PETROLEUM CONSULTANTS LTD.     |   |
|                               |   |
| “Originally Signed by” |   |
|                               |   |
| John E. Keith, P. Eng.             |   |
| Vice President                     |   |

----
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**
MEMORANDUM OPINION
N o. 04

- 18

- 00902

- CV
ESTATE OF MANUEL G. FLORES, DECEASED From the County Court , Bandera County, Texas Trial Court No. 17

- 0030 Honorable Richard A. Evans , Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM Sitting: Irene Rios, Justice Beth Watkins, Justice Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice Delivered and Filed: January 9, 2019
DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION The docketing statement and a filing fee of $205.00 were due when appel lant filed his notice of appeal

. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 32.1 (providing an appellant in a civil case shall file a docketing statement promptly upon filing the notice of appeal); T EXAS S UPREME C OURT O RDER R EGARDING F EES C HARGED I N THE S UPREME C OURT , I N C IVIL C ASES I N THE C OURTS OF A PPEALS ,
AND B EFORE THE J UDICI AL P ANEL ON M ULTIDISTRICT L ITIGATION (Misc. Docket No. 159158, Aug. 28, 2015). We issued an order on December 13 , 2018, notifying appellant that the filing fee had not been paid and the docketing statement had not been filed. We ordered appellant to pay the filing fee and file the docketing statement on or before December 27, 2018 . Our order advised appellant that if the filing fee was not paid and the docketing statement was not filed, this appeal would be dismissed.04

- 18

- 00902

- CV

- 2

- The filing fee has not been paid a nd the docketing statement has not been filed. We therefore dismiss this appeal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 42.3( c ) ( permitting appellate courts to dismiss an appeal when appellant fails to comply with a court order); In the Interest of E.J.V. , No. 04

- 18

- 00035

- CV, 2018 WL 1511773, at *1 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio Mar. 28, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op.) (per curiam) (dismissing appeal, in part, for failure to comply with order to file docketing statement).
PER CURIAM
**EXHIBIT
      31**





**CERTIFICATIONS**





I,
      Matthew W. Shankle, certify that:





1.  I
      have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Advance Display
      Technologies, Inc.;





2.  Based
      on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
      fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made,
      in
      light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading
      with respect to the period covered by this report;





3.  Based
      on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
      included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
      condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer
      as
      of, and for, the periods presented in this report;





4.  I
      am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
      procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
      small business issuer and I have:





(a)  Designed
      such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls
      and
      procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material
      information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated
      subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly
      during the period in which this report is being prepared;





(b)  Evaluated
      the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure controls and
      procedures and presented in this report my conclusions about the effectiveness
      of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end the period covered
      by
      this report based on such evaluation;





(c)  Disclosed
      in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal control over
      financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent
      fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
      materially affect, the small business issuer’s internal control over financial
      reporting; and





5.  I
      have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the small business
      issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer's board
      of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):





(a)  All
      significant deficiencies and material weakness in the design or operation of
      internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
      adversely affect the small business issuer’s ability to record, process,
      summarize and report financial information; and





(b)  Any
      fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
      who
      have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal control over
      financial reporting.





Date:  November
      14,2007








/s/
      Matthew W. Shankle





Matthew
      W. Shankle


President,
      Chief Executive and Financial Officer
*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the

citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under

the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

** After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this

appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case therefore is ordered

submitted without oral argument.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

Filed 10/4/96

TENTH CIRCUIT

 

JERRY THOMPSON, )

)

Plaintiff-Appellant, )

)

vs. ) No. 96-1213

) (D.C. No. 96-S-611)

STEVE MILLS, JOEL KNOWLES, ) (D. Colo.)

LEANN LARIVA, JOHN LEE, and )

R. LARIVA, )

)

Defendants-Appellees. )

 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

 

Before TACHA, BALDOCK, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.**

 

On May 1, 1996, the district court dismissed Plaintiff Jerry Thompson’s civil rights

complaint for want of prosecution and as legally frivolous. On May 10, 1996, Plaintiff

Jerry Thompson, appearing pro se, filed a Notice of Appeal together with a Motion for

Leave to Proceed on Appeal In Forma Pauperis. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 as
amended by the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-34, § 804, 110

Stat. 1321 (effective April 26, 1996), the district court certified that the appeal was not

taken in good faith and denied the motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).

Both the former subsection (d), and the newly enacted subsection (e)(2)(B)(I) of

28 U.S.C. § 1915 permit us to dismiss a frivolous appeal. An appeal is frivolous if it

relies “on an indisputably meritless legal theory” or contains “clearly baseless” factual

allegations. See Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1109 (10th Cir. 1991). We have

reviewed Plaintiff’s brief, pleadings and the entire record before us. We conclude that

Plaintiff’s appeal is frivolous for substantially the reasons set forth in the district court’s

order of dismissal. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed on Appeal In

Forma Pauperis is denied and his appeal is dismissed.

Motion DENIED; Appeal DISMISSED.

Entered for the Court

Bobby R. Baldock 

Circuit Judge
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JAMES LETT.

February 11, 1985.

Petition for certification denied.
Exhibit 10.3  Amended and Restated Note - Coppa






Exhibit 10.3












AMENDMENT NO. 2
TO 
UNSECURED PROMISSORY NOTE


This instrument is Amendment No. 2 (this “Amendment”), dated as of April 30, 2014, to the Unsecured Promissory Note dated as of September 17, 2010 (the “Promissory Note”) issued by American Power Group  Corporation (formerly GreenMan Technologies, Inc.) (the “Company”) to Charles E. Coppa (the “Holder”). Terms used in this Amendment without definition which are defined in the Promissory Note have the same meanings in this Amendment as in the Promissory Note unless otherwise provided herein.    
    
WHEREAS, the Company has previously issued the Promissory Note to the Holder and amended the Promissory Note on April 27, 2012;


WHEREAS, the Promissory Note shall remain in full force and effect with this Amendment No. 2; and


WHEREAS, the Company and the Holder now desire to further amend the Promissory Note; 


NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which the Parties hereby acknowledge, the Company and the Holder, intending to be legally bound, hereby agree as follows:


		
	1.
	The first paragraph of the Promissory Note is hereby amended by:




		
	(a)
	deleting the reference to “the second anniversary of the Closing (as defined below)” therein and replacing it with “September 30, 2014”;




		
	(b)
	Deleting the reference to “at a rate equal to twelve percent (12%) per annum” therein and replacing it with “at a rate equal to eight percent (8%) per annum”; and




		
	(c)
	deleting the following sentence at the end of such paragraph:




“Notwithstanding the foregoing, commencing on the sale of at least $7,000,000 of Convertible Preferred Stock pursuant to that certain Securities Purchase Agreement by and among the Debtor and certain Purchasers (as defined therein) and the receipt by the Debtor of $7,000,000 before payment of applicable fees and expenses (the “Closing”), the interest rate on this Note shall be reduced from twelve percent (12%) per annum to eight percent (8%) per annum.” 


2.    The Holder waives any prior default under the Promissory Note.


3.    Except as otherwise amended by this Amendment, all other terms and conditions of the Promissory Note shall remain in full force and effect. 


4.    This Amendment shall be governed by and construed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 











IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Amendment to be executed by their duly authorized representatives as of the date first written above.




American Power Group Corporation
(Formerly known as GreenMan Technologies, Inc.)


By:  /s/Maury Needham        
Maury Needham
Chairman




HOLDER:


        
/s/Charles E. Coppa            
Charles E. Coppa
News United States Air Force
 Mobility forces enable joint forcible entry exercisePublished Aug. 7, 2017
                        
                        By Airman 1st Class Erin McClellan
                        
                        
                        22nd Air Refueling Wing Public Affairs
                **JOINT BASE LEWIS-MCCHORD, Wash. (AFNS)  --**
                Air mobility forces partnered with the Army’s 82nd Airborne Division for a joint forcible entry exercise Aug. 2, 2017, at both Joint Base Lewis-McChord and Moses Lake as part of Exercise Mobility Guardian. 
Thirteen C-17 Globemaster III’s, 19 C-130 Hercules and 10 air refueling aircraft from the U.S., Australia, New Zealand, Canada and England enabled the mission, said Air Force Lt. Col. Judd Baker, the 43rd Operations Support Squadron commander, Pope Field, North Carolina.
Personnel from the 82nd ABN, Fort Bragg, North Carolina, and 43rd Air Mobility Operations Group, Pope Field, prepared and inspected heavy cargo to ensure it was airworthy prior to the mission, he added.
During the operation, partnerships between the Air Force and the Army were capitalized on to airdrop equipment and 377 Soldiers into an austere airfield at Moses Lake to exercise the global response force.
“Every time there’s an airborne assault, we’re using the Air Force,” said Army Lt. Col. Ricky Taylor, the 1st Battalion, 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment battalion commander. “The joint planning and collaboration between the staffs and the commands is imperative. “We have a good working relationship, but we always need to hone our planning processes and overall skills. What we don’t want is atrophy throughout the force.”
Once the 82nd ABN secured the airfield, they transitioned control to 821st Contingency Response Group personnel, who then began air base opening operations to safely land aircraft at the site. Exercises of this nature help ensure the branches are able to operate together seamlessly in real-world situations. 
“Practice makes perfect, and that’s why we need this kind of exercise,” said Air Force Maj. Ryan Strength, a 621st Mobility Support Operations Squadron air mobility liaison officer. “Not everything goes as planned the first time, and the way we find that out is through execution. We’re not going to find all the limiting factors to any kind of scenario unless we actually practice it. You can always get better at something, and the more opportunities we have to train, the better equipped we’re going to be for when we’re actually fighting a war.”Joint Base Lewis-McChord 



JB Lewis-Mcchord 



Air Mobility Command 



AMC 



82nd Airborne Division 



Exercise Mobility Guardian 



C-17 



Globemaster III 



C-130 



Hercules 



43rd Operations Support Squadron 



43rd OSS 



Pope Field 



43rd Air Mobility Operations Group 



43rd AMOP 



Australia 



New Zealand 



Canada 



U.K. 



Army 



821st Contingency Response Group 



821st CRG 



621st Mobility Support Operations Squadron 



621st MSOS 



Air Force 



AF
Motion Granted; Vacated and Remanded and Memorandum Opinion filed 

November 9, 2023

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-23-00045-CV

ROSA E. RAMIREZ, Appellant

V.

MARIO PADRON, Appellee

On Appeal from the 270th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2019-86516

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is an appeal from a judgment signed October 27, 2022. On March 23, 

2023, we abated this appeal to allow the parties pursue mediation. On October 10, 

2023, the parties filed a joint motion to set aside the trial court’s judgment without 

regard to the merits, and remand the case to the trial court for rendition of 

judgment in accordance with the parties’ agreement to settle. See Tex. R. App. P. 
42.1(a)(2)(B). Accordingly, we reinstate the appeal and grant the joint motion. 

We set aside and vacate the trial court’s judgment without regard to the 

merits and remand the case to the trial court for rendition of judgment in 

accordance with the agreement. Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(2)(B).

PER CURIAM 

Panel consists of Justices Wise, Zimmerer, and Poissant. 

2
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.6


                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT
                         -----------------------------

We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form
S-3 of Devon Energy Corporation, of our report dated January 20, 1999 to the
shareholders of Northstar Energy Corporation, relating to the consolidated
balance sheets of Northstar Energy Corporation and subsidiaries as at December
31, 1998 and the related consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive
income (loss), stockholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the
two-year period ended December 31, 1998, which report appears in the Current
Report on Form 8-K of Devon Energy Corporation filed on November 13, 2000.

We also consent to the reference to our firm under the heading "Experts" in the
Registration Statement.


                                     Deloitte & Touche LLP Chartered Accountants
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
November 15, 2000
## In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 16

- 00066

- CR

BRENDA DAVIS INGRAM, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 82nd District Court

Robertson County, Texas

Trial Court No. 15

- 03

- 20050

- CR

Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Burgess2 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION

Brenda Davis Ingram has filed a motion to dismiss th is appeal. 1 The motion was signed

by both Ingram and her appellate counsel in compliance with Rule 42.2(a) of the Texas Rules of

Appellate Procedure. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.2(a). As authorized by Rule 42.2(a), we grant t he

motion.

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal.

Ralph K. Burgess

Justice

Date Submitted: May 3, 2016

Date Decided: May 4, 2016

Do Not Publish

1 Originally appealed to the Tenth Court of Appeals, this case was transferred to this Court by the Texas Supreme

Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See T EX

. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN

. § 73.001 (West 2013). We are unaware

of any conflict between precedent of the Tenth Court of Appeal s and that of this Court on any relevant issue. See

T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 41.3.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JAMES WARING.

September 17, 1985.

Petition for certification denied.