alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
LOAN January 21, 2021

   
 LOAN
 AGREEMENT
 January 21, 2021
  
 Rain Communications Corp. (the “Lender”) with an address at 1130 West Pender Street, Unit 820, Vancouver, BC V6E 4A4, advanced USD$45,000 (the “Principal Sum”) to Cell MedX Corp. (the “Borrower”) of 123 W. Nye Ln, Suite 446, Carson City, NV 89706. The Lender advanced the funds on January 21, 2021.
  
 The Borrower agrees to repay the Principal Sum on demand, together with interest calculated and compounded monthly at the rate of 6% per year (the “Interest”) calculated from January 21, 2021 (the “Effective Date”). The Borrower is liable for repayment of the Principal Sum, accrued Interest, and any additional costs that the Lender incurs in trying to collect the amount owed to him under the terms of this Loan Agreement.
  
 The Borrower will evidence the debt and its repayment of the Principal Sum and the Interest with a promissory note in the attached form.
  
 	 LENDER
	 BORROWER

	 Rain Communications Corp.
	 Cell MedX Corp.

	  
	  

	 Per:
	 Per:

	  
	  

	  
	  

	 /s/ Ralph Biggar
	 /s/  Yanika Silina

	 Ralph Biggar, President
	 Yanika Silina, CFO


  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
  
  
 PROMISSORY NOTE
  
 	 Principal Amount: USD$45,000
	 January 21, 2021


  
  
 FOR VALUE RECEIVED Cell MedX Corp., (the “Borrower”) promises to pay on demand to the order of Rain Communications Corp. (the “Lender”) the sum of $45,000 lawful money of the United States of America (the “Principal Sum”) together with the Interest accrued on the Principal Sum calculated from January 21, 2021 (“Effective Date”) both before and after maturity, default and judgment at the Interest Rate as defined below.
  
 For the purposes of this promissory note, Interest Rate means 6 per cent per year. Interest at the Interest Rate must be calculated and compounded monthly not in advance from and including the Effective Date (for an effective rate of 6.2% per annum calculated monthly), and is payable together with the Principal Sum when the Principal Sum is repaid.
  
 The Borrower may repay the Principal Sum, and the Interest in whole or in part at any time.
  
 The Borrower waives presentment, protest, notice of protest and notice of dishonour of this promissory note.
  
  
 BORROWER
 Cell MedX Corp.
  
 Per:
  
  
 /s/ Yanika Silina
 Yanika Silina, CFO
<PAGE>   1
                                                                Exhibit 10.15(a)


                                               January 11, 2000



Mr. Edward A. Brennan
400 North Michigan Avenue
Suite 400
Chicago IL   60611

Dear Ed:

         For calendar year 2000, you've elected to defer the retainers and fees
that would otherwise be paid for your service on the Board of Directors (and
related Committees) of AMR Corporation.

         In accordance with our discussion of this date, you have elected to
continue the deferral arrangement currently in effect (see the attached
agreement).

         Please sign this letter below evidencing your intent to continue the
current deferral arrangement and return one original (two originals are
enclosed) to me.

         Thank you for your cooperation and if there are questions please let me
know.

                                               Very truly yours,



                                               Charles D. MarLett
                                               Corporate Secretary


DEFERRAL OF 2000 FEES AND RETAINERS TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH JUNE 2, 1998
LETTER:



AGREED:
       ------------------------------
       EDWARD A. BRENNAN


Attachment
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-4822

In Re: URIEL MORENO-MENDOZA,

Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:04-cr-00248-NCT) Submitted: October 20, 2006 Decided: November 15, 2006 Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Uriel Moreno-Mendoza, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Uriel Moreno-Mendoza seeks a writ of mandamus to compelthe district court to schedule his resentencing hearing. MorenoMendoza’s resentencing hearing took place on September 28, 2006. Accordingly, while we grant his motion to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny as moot his petition for writ of mandamus. 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.
PETITION DENIED
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-40060

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CRAIG SCOTT HICKSON,

Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:98-CR-21-ALL

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

August 25, 1999

Before KING, Chief Judge, HIGGINBOTHAM and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Craig Hickson appeals his convictions for bei ng a felon in

possession of a firearm and selling a stolen firearm. Hickson

argues that (1) there was insufficient evidence to support his

convictions; (2) the district court violated his due process rights

by warning his attorney to avoid references to the jury’s racial

makeup; (3) the district court violated his Sixth Amendment rights

by impaneling a juror that resided outside the Eastern District of

T exas; (4) the district court committed reversible error by

depriving him of a substantial and significant portion of theNo. 99-40060

-2-

rec ord; and (5) the district court violated his Sixth Amendment

rights when it erroneously denied his motion to call the prosecutor

as a witness.

Because Hickson did not move for judgment of acquittal, this

court’s review of the sufficiency of the evidence is limited to

determining whether there was a manifest misc arriage of justice.

See United States v. Johnson

, 87 F.3d 133, 136 (5th Cir. 1996). We

have reviewed the arguments and the appellate record and conclude

that no manifest miscarriage o f justice occurred. S ee United

States v. Haese , 162 F.3d 359, 366 (5th Cir. 1998), cert. denied

,

119 S. Ct. 1795 (1999); United States v. Dixon , 132 F.3d 192, 200

(5th Cir. 1997), cert. denied , 118 S. Ct. 1581 (1998).

This court also concludes that (1) the district court properly

warned Hickso n’s trial counsel about his opening remarks and did

not so favor the prosecution that it appeared to predispose the

jury toward a finding of guilt, s ee Derden v. McNeel

, 978 F.2d

1453, 1459 (5th Cir. 1992); (2) Hickson has failed to show that the

district court impaneled a juror that resided outside the Eastern

District of Texas; (3) Hickson has failed to show that the district

court deprived him of a substantial and significant portion of the

record, see United States v. Aubin , 87 F.3d 141, 149 (5th Cir.

1996); and (4) Hickson has failed to show that the district court

abused its discretion by denying his motion to call the prosecutor

as a witness, see United States v. Bates

, 600 F.2d 50 5, 511 (5th

Cir. 1979); United States v. Crockett

, 506 F.2d 759, 760 (5th Cir.

1975).

AFFIRMED.
#### STATE v. GIBSON

No. 531P01

Case below: 145 N.C. App. 503

Petition by defendant for writ of certiorari to review the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 8 November 2001.
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

In re Commitment of Robert John Baker, * From the 142nd District Court

 of Midland County,

 Trial Court No. CV57854.

No. 11-22-00223-CV * June 27, 2024

* Memorandum Opinion by Bailey, C.J.

(Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Trotter, J., and Williams, J.)

 

 

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is no

error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, 

the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
#### Ben Perry et al *v.*Thomas L. McKee et al.

Judgment — Action on Bond — Assessment of Damages.

In an action, founded on bonds of defendants to perform the judgment exhibited and the amount sought to be recovered was specifically stated in accordance with the judgment, the defendants failing to answer, the court is authorized to rpnder a judgment without a jury to asess damages.

APPEAL FROM OWEN CIRCUIT COURT.

December 9, 1868.

*664Opinion oe ti-ie Court by

Judge Hardin :

Although the verdict of the jury in the suit of McKee, &c., vs. Frank Perry may have been irregular or erroneous’ in not conforming to the 360th section of the Civil Code, nevertheless the judgment was not void and could not be so regarded in this section.

Nor was the misjoinder of defendants, if in fact they were not properly joined as parties separately liable on the same contract, an available objection, upon the general demurrer in this case. (Civil Code, section 121).

As the action was founded on the bonds of the defendants to perform the judgment of the court and the judgment was exhibited and the amount sought to be recovered was specifically stated in accordance with the judgment, and the defendants failed to answer, the court was authorized, under section 409 of the Civil Code, to render judgment in the action without a jury to assess damages.

We perceive no available error in the judgment.

Wherefore, the .judgment is affirmed.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"NASA MIRO: 30 Years of Providing Research Opportunities","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"pmuDMyUUBs\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/centers-and-facilities\/armstrong\/nasa-miro-30-years-of-providing-research-opportunities\/\">NASA MIRO: 30 Years of Providing Research Opportunities<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/centers-and-facilities\/armstrong\/nasa-miro-30-years-of-providing-research-opportunities\/embed\/#?secret=pmuDMyUUBs\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA MIRO: 30 Years of Providing Research Opportunities” — NASA\" data-secret=\"pmuDMyUUBs\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/upr_image_1.jpeg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":400}
CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

                           CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the Annual Report  of KIWI Network Solutions Inc., a Nevada
corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended September
30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"),
Robert Vivacqua, Acting Chief Financial Officer of the Company do hereby
certify, pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Sec.
1350), that to his knowledge:

     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company.


By:      /s/Robert  Vivacqua
         --------------------------------

Name:   Robert Vivacqua

Title:  Acting Chief Financial Officer

Date:   January 31, 2005

[A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to KIWI Network Solutions Inc. and will be retained by KIWI Network
Solutions Inc and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.]


<PAGE>
Exhibit 10.3


 


		Letter
                                         of Clarification
	 




 


July
15th, 2020


 


Mr.
Matt Nicosia


CEO,
VIVAKOR Inc.


 


RE:
Invoice/Operating Charter SOLV-VIV-001


 


With respect
to the initial Agreement between Vivakor and solvAQUA; solvAQUA wishes to append such agreement with the following clarifications.


 


1.
solvAQUA acknowledges Vivakor's key technology is the Remediation Processing Center (RPC) that separates hydrocarbons from dry
soil. The RPC is currently being used in remediation projects in Vernal Utah to extract oil from the dry oil sands and in Kuwait
to clean up large scale oil spills.  Understanding that Vivakor wants to combine the solvAQUA technology to allow it to deal
with remediation projects that have a combination of wet and dry opportunities both in existing locations and new opportunities
globally which may include but not be limited to immediate projects on Native American lands; solvAQUA hereby grants to Vivakor
an exclusive license to incorporate its technology platform into scenarios such as described above for a term of ONE YEAR. Upon
successful installation and deployment of Vivakor initial TWO WMS UNITS such term shall be extended to FIVE YEARS. 


 


In
addition, understanding through its field operation activities and relationships, Vivakor may from time to time have the opportunity
to deploy the technology for cleaning other waste streams such as, but not limited to: produced water, tank bottom sludge and mining
water clean up; SUBJECT TO initial conditions being met as described above; solvAQUA shall grant to Vivakor a non-exclusive license
to deploy the technology on a case by case basis for the same term as above.


 


2.
Due to AHS (Alberta Health Services) and Government of Canada COVID 19 Guidelines and Restrictions; solvAQUA hereby exercises its
rights under the terms of the invoice SOLV-VIV-001 to extend delivery of units to October 31st, 2020. Accordingly, solvAQUA again
has the right to further adjust the timeline as per the above referenced Guidelines. Initial payment is due upon completion of
the machinery. 


 


We
trust the above to be satisfactory and an accurate reflection of our discussions regarding same.


 




/s/ Chris Tesarski


 


Chris
Tesarski


CEO,
solvAQUA Inc.
EXHIBIT
23





CONSENT
OF ACCOUNTANTS








CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS





We consent to the incorporation by
reference in the registration statement (File No. 333-156882) of MutualFirst Financial, Inc.’s
2008 Equity Incentive Plan, MFB Corp. 2002 Stock Option Plan and MFB Corp. 1997
Stock Option Plan on Form S-8 and registration statement (File No. 333-53600) of
MutualFirst Financial,
Inc.’s 2000 Recognition and Retention Plan and 2000 Stock Option and Incentive
Plan on Form S-8 of our reports dated March __, 2009 on the
consolidated financial statements of MutualFirst Financial, Inc.
as of December 31, 2008 and 2007 and for each of the three years in the period
ended December 31, 2008, and on our audit of internal control over financial
reporting of the MutualFirst Financial, Inc.
as of December 31, 2008, which reports are incorporated by reference in MutualFirst Financial, Inc.’s
Annual Report on Form 10-K.





/s/ BKD,
LLP





Indianapolis,
Indiana


March 23,
2009
AO 458 (Rev. 06/09) Appearance of Counsel

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff

v. Case No.

Defendant

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL

To: The clerk of court and all parties of record

I am admitted or otherwise authorized to practice in this court, and I appear in this case as counsel for:

.

Date:

Attorney’s signature

Printed name and bar number

Address

E-mail address

Telephone number

FAX number

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8993 Filed 11/30/17 Page 1 of 1
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-7385

In Re: ALFRED F. WORLEY,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-00-13-1-MU)

Submitted: January 14, 2004 Decided: March 23, 2004

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alfred F. Worley, Petitioner pro se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Alfred F. Worley has filed a petition for writ of

mandamus asking this court to dismiss the state criminal charges

pursuant to which he is incarcerated and to grant any other

appropriate relief. Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only

in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court,

426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976). Mandamus relief is available only when

there are no other means by which the relief sought could be

granted, In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987), and may

not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re Catawba Indian

Tribe, 973 F.2d 1133, 1135 (4th Cir. 1992). The party seeking

mandamus relief carries the heavy burden of showing that he has “no

other adequate means to attain the relief he desires” and that his

entitlement to such relief is “clear and indisputable.” Allied

Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 35 (1980). Worley has

not made such a showing. Accordingly, we deny Worley’s motion for

leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny his motion to expedite,

and dismiss his petition for a writ of mandamus. 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.

PETITION DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 23
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (File No. 333-53600) on Form S-8 of *MutualFirst*Financial, Inc.'s 2000 Recognition and Retention Plan and 2000 Stock Option and Incentive Plan of ourreport dated February 4, 2005 of our audits of the consolidated financial statements of *MutualFirst* Financial, Inc as of December 31, 2004 and 2003 and for each of the three years in the periodended December 31, 2004, and of our report dated March 25, 2005 on management's assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which reports are included in *MutualFirst* Financial, Inc.'s amended annual report on Form 10-K/A forthe year ended December 31, 2004.
/s/ BKD, LLP
Indianapolis, IndianaApril 27, 2005
1 min read

# NASA Awards Spaceflight Development, Operations Contract

### Roxana Bardan

Feb 22, 2024

CONTRACT RELEASEC24-007

NASA Headquarters

### Glenn Research Center

            -   
            -   
            -   
            -   

NASA has selected Sierra Lobo Inc. of Fremont, Ohio, to support spaceflight hardware design, development, testing, and operations at NASA’s Glenn Research Center in Cleveland. 

The Space Flight Systems Development and Operations Contract III is a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract featuring a cost-plus-fixed-fee and firm-fixed-price indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity provision with a maximum potential value of approximately $282.1 million. The 90-day phase-in period is anticipated to begin on Tuesday, Feb. 27, followed by a three-year base period and two two-year option periods.

The systems development and operations contract encompasses the development and delivery of technology development hardware and software, space flight hardware and software, ground support equipment, spares, as well as mission integration and operations, and sustaining engineering. The contractor will be responsible for the definition, design, development, analysis, fabrication, assembly, test, verification, delivery, and operation of space flight systems, associated support systems and equipment, and related ground activities, including research, science, and technology development and demonstrations.

For information about NASA and other agency programs, visit:

https://www.nasa.gov

-end-

Roxana BardanHeadquarters, Washington202-358-1600roxana.bardan@nasa.gov

Jan WittryGlenn Research Center, Cleveland216-433-5466Jan.m.wittry-1@nasa.gov

## Share

                  -   
                  -   
                  -   
                  -   

## Details

NASA Headquarters

## Related Terms

                - Glenn Research Center