alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 10.6

 

Darkstar Ventures Inc. 

410 Park Avenue, 15th Floor 

New York, NY 10022

 

June 10, 2014

 

First Line Capital, LLC

 

Re: Promissory Note dated March 13, 2012
 

Gentlemen:

 

Reference is hereby made to the Promissory Note dated March 13, 2012 (the "Note"), as extended by the letter agreement dated October 8, 2013. Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the Note.

 

Holder hereby agrees and acknowledges that notwithstanding the terms of the Note, the Maturity Date of the Note is March 31, 2015. The parties further agree and acknowledge that from March 31, 2014 through the date hereof, the Note was in default.

 

As of the date hereof, Borrower agrees and acknowledges that the amount of principal outstanding under the Note is $90,690 and the amount of accrued interest thereon is $12,580.66.

 

For purposes of clarity and to remove any ambiguity, Borrower and Holder agree that there is no maximum amount that the Holder has agreed to fund pursuant to the Note and no minimum amounts of increments.

 

This amendment shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of New York applicable to agreements made and to be performed therein without giving effect to conflict of law principles.

 

After the date hereof, any and all references to the Note shall include the terms of this agreement.

 

If the foregoing accurately sets forth our agreement, please execute where indicated below and return a fully executed copy of this agreement to our attention, whereupon this agreement shall become a valid and binding agreement between us in accordance with the terms hereof.

  

	 	DARKSTAR VENTURES INC.	 
	 	 	 	 
		By:	/s/ Chizkiyahu Lapin	 
	 	Name:	Chizkiyahu Lapin	 
	 	Title:	CEO	 


   

	AGREED AND ACCEPTED:	 
	 	
	FIRST LINE CAPITAL, LLC	
	 	 	 
	By:	/s/ Daniel Hirsch	 
	Name:	Daniel Hirsch	 
	Title:	Managing Partner
#### W. C. Dibrell v. Geo. D. Robinson et al.

(No. 517, Tex. L. J., vol. 2, p. 474.)

Appeal from Leon County.

Opinion by

White, J.

§ 721. *Damages for wrongfully and maliciously instituting suit, not recoverable.*Dibrell sued Robinson and seven others as mercantile partners. Robinson did not answer, and a judgment by default was rendered against him. The other defendants denied the partnership under oath, and pleaded in reconvention for damages, because the suit had been wrongfully and maliciously brought by plaintiff against them, and that their damages consisted in loss of time, expenses, attorneys’ fees, vexation and *394harassment of mind, and injury to their reputation and financial standing. Trying the case without a jury, the court gave each of these seven defendants a j udgment for $15, aggregating $105, on their plea in reconvention.

March 8, 1879.

The rules of law relative to such damages as were claimed in reconvention' in this case are so fully considered and settled in Salado College v. Davis that we need refer to no other authorities. In that case it is said: “ To bring an action, though there be no good ground, is not actionable. An act that does not amount to a legal injury cannot be actionable because it is done with bad intent. In ordinary cases, where no further wrongful act is complained of than the institution of a groundless suit, though done knowingly and with intent to harass, the award of costs is, in contemplation of law, full compensation for the unjust vexation. In such cases the defendant recovers his costs, but no allowance is made him for his time, indirect loss, annoyance or counsel fees. . . . Every defendant against ■whom an action is *‘*unnecessarily ’ brought experiences some injury or inconvenience beyond what the costs will compensate him for. This injury or inconvenience results from a resort to the legally constituted tribunals, and it seems to be the policy of the law to content itself with meting out something less than our ideas of natural justice ■would demand, rather than increase the risks attending and discourage such a resort, and at the same time add to the difficulties and intricacies of ordinary litigation.” [Salado College v. Davis, 47 Tex. 131.] Different rules prevail where extraordinary remedies are wrongfully resorted to. Here there were no extraordinary remedies sought or used, the action being simply one of debt on account.

Reversed and remanded.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 72 (Wednesday, May 3, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H4514]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                          WHERE IS THE BUDGET?

  (Mrs. SCHROEDER asked and was given permission to address the House 
for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, well, the tax cuts got passed, the 
circus came to the Hill, and, guess what, we still do not have a 
budget.
  We do not have any budget because now they have got to do the tough 
part, the spending part, and there is nothing really there they can cut 
except Medicare. They do not want to cut Medicare.
  You know, we have tried last year, for the last 2 years, with the 
President, to reform the whole health care system. Boy, we did not get 
any help on that side.
  They promised they could do this. This was going to be so easy. Now 
you hear everybody, saying, ``Hey, where is the President, where is the 
President? He ought to do this.''
  Well, he was here last time. He was trying to do it. We were trying 
to do it with him. We got no help there.
  Let us get this budget out. Let us see what we are going to do to get 
this thing balanced, and let us stop seeing the whining for help from 
the White House.

                          ____________________
```
News United States Air Force
 GI Bill TransferPublished June 20, 2019
                        
                        By Senior Airman Jasmine Vanderheyden
                        
                        
                        Air Force TV
                **FORT GEORGE G. MEADE, Md. (AFNS) --**
                Last year new guidance was announced on transferring GI Bill benefits. The changes go into effect July 12th.

</iframe

Related links:
- **Transfer Post-9/11 GI Bill to Spouse and Dependents**
- **Changes to Post-9/11 GI Bill transfers effective July 2019**
- **milConnect Benefits Transfer**AFTV 



Airmen 



Airman 



Air Force 



AF 



USAF 



DOD 



VA 



Department of Defense 



veterans affairs 



benefits 



GI Bill 



Post 9/11 GI Bill 



education 



school 



policy changes 



U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 7011

JIMMY ALLEN ROBERTS , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. FRANK L. PERRY, Secretary of Prisons, North Carolina Department of Public Safety; LYNN OLLIS, Mailroom Supervisor, Mountain View Correctional Institute; FNU GREAR, Corrections Officer, Mountain View Correctional Institute; MIKE SLAGLE, Superintendent, Mountain View Correctional Institute , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States Distric t Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Asheville

. Frank D. Whitney , Chief District Judge. ( 1:16

- cv
- 00385

- FDW )

Submitted : October 17, 2019 Decided: October 22, 2019

Before MOTZ and QUATTLEBAUM , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Jimmy Allen Roberts, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Jimm y Allen Roberts appeals the district court’s order granting Defendants summary judgment in Roberts’ civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc to
2000cc

- 5 (2012) . On appeal, we confine our review to the is sues raised in the Appellant’s
brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Roberts’ informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, Roberts has forfeited appellate review of the court’s
order. See Williams v. Giant Food Inc. , 370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4 (4th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid th e decisional process.
AFFIRMED
News United States Air Force
 Around the Air Force: Gender Relations Survey, Special Leave Changes, Promotion Board AlignmentPublished Sept. 8, 2023
                        
                        By Tech. Sgt. Eric Mann
                        
                        
                        Air Force TV
                **FORT GEORGE G. MEADE, Md. (AFNS) --**
                In this week’s look around the Air Force, selected servicemembers can take the DoD gender relations survey anonymously, Special Leave Accrual has some important changes and the Air Force is aligning promotion boards for officers to evaluation closeout dates. (Hosted by Staff Sgt. Jazmin Granger)



02:00


**Watch on DVIDS | Watch on YouTube**
For previous episodes, click **here** for the Air Force TV page.Featured Video 



AF 



Air Force 



ATAF 



Around the Air Force 



AFTV Related Links
        DOD Launches 2023 Gender Relations Survey
            
            DoD announces changes to special leave accrual policy for service members
            
            Air Force announces CY24 promotion board schedule, aligns to officer SCODs
#### Mollie E. Cross et al. v. R. Peterson.

(No. 1308, Op. Book No. 2, p. 251.)

Error from Lamar County.

Opinion by

Watts, J.

§ 1028. *Jurisdiction of county court as to amount; due order of pleading.*Appellee sued appellants upon a rental contract for the rent of houses, the lease being for the term of one year-for $800, payable monthly *pro rata.*At the time of the institution of the suit but $70 of the rent was due. A distress warrant was sued out and' levied upon property, etc. Appellants pleaded that the county court had no jurisdiction of the amount in controversy. This plea was overruled, when appellants then pleaded in reconvention for damages for the wrongful suing out of the distress warrant. Appellee excepted to this plea because it was not filed in the due order of pleading, and it was stricken out. Appellee amended his petition, and alleged that since the institution of the suit more of the rent had become due, and that the amount then due was $266. Held, 1. That the county court had no jurisdiction of the amount in controversy, that is, the amount of rent that was due at the time of the institution of the suit, and that this want of jurisdiction was apparent upon the face of the plaintiff’s petition, and the court should have dismissed the suit upon its own motion, even if there had *577been no plea to the jurisdiction. 2. It would be more in consonance with the statute to file all defenses at the same time. However, we see no real purpose to be sub-served, or good to be obtained, by refusing to allow a defendant to file his defenses at any time before judgment-by default has been taken against him, provided that it is done at a time and under circumstances that will work no surprise or injury to the other party. The great beauty and merit of our system of jurisprudence is its liberality in pleading and amendment so as to reach a trial upon the merits of each case.

March 9, 1881.

Reversed and remanded.
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 344 

To prohibit the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency from 

approving the introduction into commerce of gasoline that contains greater than 10-volume-percent ethanol, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 14, 2013 

Mr. WICKER (for himself and Mr. VITTER) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public 

Works 

A BILL 

To prohibit the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency from approving the introduction into commerce of gasoline that contains greater than 10-volumepercent ethanol, 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. PROHIBITION OF GASOLINE BLENDS WITH 

4 GREATER THAN 10-VOLUME-PERCENT ETH5 ANOL. 

6 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Ad7 ministrator of the Environmental Protection Agency may 

8 not, including by granting a waiver under section 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 344 IS

1 211(f)(4) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7545(f)(4)), au2 thorize or otherwise allow the introduction into commerce 

3 of gasoline containing greater than 10-volume-percent eth4 anol. 

5 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF WAIVERS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Any waiver granted under section 

7 211(f)(4) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7545(f)(4)) be8 fore the date of enactment of this Act that allows the in9 troduction into commerce of gasoline containing greater 

10 than 10-volume-percent ethanol for use in motor vehicles 

11 shall have no force or effect. 

12 (b) CERTAIN WAIVERS.—The waivers described in 

13 subsection (a) include the following: 

14 (1) The waiver entitled, ‘‘Partial Grant and 

15 Partial Denial of Clean Air Act Waiver Application 

16 Submitted by Growth Energy To Increase the Allow17 able Ethanol Content of Gasoline to 15 Percent; De18 cision of the Administrator’’, 75 Fed. Reg. 68094 

19 (November 4, 2010). 

20 (2) The waiver entitled, ‘‘Partial Grant of 

21 Clean Air Act Waiver Application Submitted by 

22 Growth Energy To Increase the Allowable Ethanol 

23 Content of Gasoline to 15 Percent; Decision of the 

24 Administrator’’, 76 Fed. Reg. 4662 (January 26, 

25 2011). 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 344 IS

1 SEC. 3. MISFUELING RULE. 

2 The portions of the rule entitled, ‘‘Regulation to Miti3 gate the Misfueling of Vehicles and Engines with Gasoline 

4 Containing Greater Than Ten Volume Percent Ethanol 

5 and Modifications to the Reformulated and Conventional 

6 Gasoline Programs’’, 76 Fed. Reg. 44406 (July 25, 2011) 

7 to mitigate misfueling shall have no force and effect 60 

8 days after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
SCWC-16-0000610
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

STATE OF HAWAI # I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs. GARY LEE FELICIANO, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (CAAP-16-0000610; CR. NO. 17-1-0660(4)) ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, and Wilson, JJ., a nd Circuit Judge Browning, in place of Pollack, J., recused)

Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant Gary Lee Feliciano’s application for writ of certiorari filed on May 2, 2020, is hereby rejected.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, June 17, 2020. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Michael D. Wilson /s/ R. Mark Browning Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-16-0000610 17-JUN-2020 10:23 AM
#### Kraft, Holmes & Co. v. E. B. Sims.

(No. 2500, Op. Book No. 4.)

Appeal from Grayson County.

Opinion by

White, P. J.

§ 404. *Contract, incomplete when, and rights of parties to mutuality in.*Reinhart, a drummer of K., H. & *176Co.', made a contract with Sims for the sale of certain goods. Sims reserved the right, at any time within ten days, to rescind the contract by countermanding his order for the goods. If he, Sims, did not rescind in ten days, then, upon receiving no notice to that effect from him, the goods were to be shipped him by EL, H. & Co. Before the expiration of the ten days, instead of Sims rescinding, EL, H. & Co. notified him that they declined to ratify the sale made by their agent, and refused to send him the goods ordered. The question is, was. there a valid, subsisting contract, such as could have been enforced by either party, until after the expiration of the ten days? Most clearly, El., H. & Co., by shipment of the goods to Sims before that lapse of time, could not have rendered him liable for a specific performance, viz., to take the goods and pay the price agreed on. Sims having the right to countermand and rescind, did not the same right inure to EL, H. & Co.?

May 5, 1883.

It is elementary that *“a*promise is a good consideration for a promise,” but it is further settled that *“a*promise is not a good consideration for a promise unless there is an absolute mutuality of engagement, so that each party has the right at once to hold the other to a positive agreement.” [1 Pars, on Cont. (5th ed.) pp. 448-9.]

§ 405. *Assent of parties to a contract.*A contract requires the assent of the parties to an agreement, and this agreement must be obligatory, and the obligation must in general be mutual. [1 Pars, on Cont. 475.]

§ 406. *Incomplete contract.*In Eskridge v. Glover, 5 Stew. &. P. 264, it was held that an *incomplete*contract or agreement which one of the parties has the option of completing at a particular day, raises a mutual right of rescission in the other party at any time before the ratification by the first. [1 Pars, on Cont. (5thed.) p. 476, and note.] *Held,*that the contract in this case was *incomplete,*and both parties could rescind in the ten days.

Reversed and remanded.
# STATEOFLOUISIANA COURTOFAPPEAL,FIRSTCIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS DONALD TIMOTHY DARDAR, JR. In Re: Donald Timothy Dardar, writs, 32nd Judicial Terrebonne, No. 780915. NO. 2022 KW 1239 

### FEBRUARY 1, 2023 Jr., applying for

District Court, supervisory Parish of BEFORE: GUIDRY, C.J., WOLFEAND MILLER, JJ. WRIT DENIED ON THE SHOWINGMADE. Relator failed to include a copy of the motion to correct an illegal sentence filed with the district court, the bill of information, the habitual offender bill of information, the commitment order, the transcript of the habitual offender proceedings, all pertinent minute entries and/or transcripts, and any other portions of the district court record that might support the claims raised in the writ application.

COURT OFAPPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT DEPUTY CLERK OF COURT FOR THE COURT JMG EW SMM
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 180 (Friday, September 17, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57015-57016]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-23223]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER10-2551-000]


Baldwin Wind, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based 
Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

September 10, 2010.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of 
Baldwin Wind, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with 
an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a 
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR Part 34, of future 
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a 
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard to the applicant's request for blanket

[[Page 57016]]

authorization, under 18 CFR Part 34, of future issuances of securities 
and assumptions of liability, is September 30, 2010.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet 
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in 
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in 
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link 
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification 
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with 
any FERC Online service, please e-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#064043544549686a6f686355737676697472466063746528616970"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d99f9c8b9a96b7b5b0b7bc8aaca9a9b6abad99bfbcabbaf7beb6af">[email protected]</span></a> or 
call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-23223 Filed 9-16-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. EDWIN R. FUCHS.

Nov. 20, 1979.

Petition for certification denied.
#### Waxahatchie Tap R. R. Co. v. J. T. Alexander.

(No. 1901, Op. Book No. 2, p. 506.)

Appeal from Ellis County.

October 29, 1881.

Opinion by

Quinan, J.

§ 1202. *Assignment of errors; token not specific will not be*considered, *but treated as waived.*The assignments of error in this case are: 1. The court erred in overruling the defendant’s motion for new trial. 2. The judgment of the court is unauthorized, and not warranted by the law and testimony. The motion for a new trial is based upon the grounds: 1. The judgment is contrary to the law and the evidence. 2. The judgment is not authorized by the evidence. The assignments of error do not distinctly specify the grounds of error relied on, and in accordance, therefore, with rules 21, 25 and 26 of the supreme court, we must consider that errors have been waived, “the same as if .no assignment of errors had been made.” “That the judgment or verdict is contrary to law ” is specially given in the rules as an illustration of- an insufficient assignment. That the judgment is not authorized by the evidence points out in no degree in what respect the evidence was insufficient. [Green v. Dallahan & Co. 54 Tex. 284.] There is nothing shown in this case which should incline us to relax the rigid enforcement of the rules.

Affirmed.