alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Mark A. Garcia","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/markagarcia\/","title":"Expedition 31","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"507emqAJwS\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/mission\/expedition-31\/\">Expedition 31<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/mission\/expedition-31\/embed\/#?secret=507emqAJwS\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Expedition 31” — NASA\" data-secret=\"507emqAJwS\" 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\/2023\/03\/exp31-portrait.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":480}
Exhibit
10.3


 


Amendment
to Share Transfer Agreement


 


This
Amendment (the “Amendment”) to the Share Transfer Agreement dated November 3, 2013, as amended (the “STA”) between
VoIP-Pal.com Inc. (“Purchaser”), Digifonica Intellectual Properties (DIP) Limited and Digifonica (International) Limited
(together, the “Seller”) (collectively the “Parties”) is entered into this 12th day of April, 2021.


 


By
mutual agreement of the Parties, the STA is amended as follows:


 


Section
5.5 of the STA is deleted in its entirety and replaced with:


 


5.5
Share Dilution. Should the Share Consideration at any material time, including after the Closing Date, represent less than
forty (40) percent of the outstanding share capital of the Purchaser, the Purchaser shall issue share purchase warrants (“Warrants”)
in the name of the Seller or the Seller’s assignee(s), as the Seller in his sole discretion will determine, each such Warrant to
be exercisable to purchase one Common share (“Warrant Share”) at a price of US$0.021 per Warrant Share for a period of ten
(10) years from the date of issue. The Purchaser must issue the Warrants in a sufficient quantity such that when exercised, the newly
issued Warrant Shares plus the Share Consideration will value forty (40) percent of the outstanding share capital of the Purchaser.


 


The
Purchaser acknowledges and represents that this Contract and the obligations of the Seller and the Company hereunder are sufficient consideration
for the issuance of the Warrants and the Warrant Shares. This Section 5.5 continues to operate, regardless of whether the Purchaser is
consolidated, amalgamated or otherwise has its share capital restructured, as well as whether additional investors and/or equity financing
is introduced into the Purchaser. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the rights of the Seller under this Section 5.5 will automatically terminate
at 11:59:59 PM Pacific Time on March 31, 2021.


 


This
Amendment is agreed to and accepted this 12th day of April, 2021.


 


	VoIP-PAL.COM
    INC.	 
	 	 	 
	Per:	/s/
    Kevin Williams	 
	 	Kevin
    Williams	 
	 	CFO
    & Director	 
	 	 	 
	DIGIFONICA
    (INTERNATlONAL) LIMITED	 
	 	 	 
	Per:	/s/
    Emil Malak	 
	 	Emil
    Malak	 
	 	Director	 
	 	 	 
	DIGIFONICA
    INTELLECTUAL PROPERTIES (DIP) LIMITED	 
	 	 	 
	Per:	/s/
    Emil Malak	 
	 	Emil
    Malak	 
	 	Director
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

3225 AVE J LLC, a Florida limited liability company, and 3237 AVE J

LLC, a Florida limited liability company

, Appellant s

,

v.

PALM BEACH COUNTY, et al.,

Appellee s

.

No. 4D 20

- 1704

[ February 3, 2022 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm

Beach County ; Cymonie S. Rowe , Judge; L.T. Case No. 502018CA014463

.

Scott C. Gherman of Scott C. Gherman, P.A., Boca Raton, for

appellants.

Helene C. Hvizd, Rachel Marie Fahey, and Chelsea J. Koester of Palm

Beach County Attorney's Office, West Palm Beach, for appellee Palm Beach

County.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

W ARNER

, G ROSS and A RTAU

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
No. 14,707.

#### Henry *v.*Adams.

*Set-Off.*— Plea *Of.*— Burden *of Proof.*— Bill *of Exceptions.*— Judgment.— Where the answer admits the execution of the note in suit, and pleads a set-off, and the general denial is pleaded by way of reply, the burden is on the defendant to establish the set-off; and where the bill of exceptions, which purports to set out the evidence, contains no evidence establishing the set-off, a judgment for the plaintiff will not be disturbed on the evidence.

From the Boone Circuit Court.

C. *S. Wesner*and *O. D. Wesner,*for appellant.

*T. W. Lockhart,*for appellee.

*496McBride, J.

— This was a suit by appellee against appellant on a note executed by appellant to one Garrison, and by Garrison endorsed to appellee, and to foreclose a mortgage executed to secure payment of the note.

There was an answer, in one paragraph, admitting the execution of the note and mortgage, pleading, as a set-off to $69.57 of the sum due on the note, a certain due bill, a note and a judgment, which together amounted to that sum, and alleging a tender of the balance due, and that the tender had been kept good, etc.

Reply in three paragraphs, the first of which is the general denial.

There was a trial by the court, a finding for plaintiff, *a motion for a new trial, which was overruled, and an exception by the appellant to this ruling, and the court rendered judgment in appellee’s favor, and a decree foreclosing the mortgage.

The only error assigned is in overruling the motion for a new trial.

The motion for a new trial is upon the ground that the decision (or verdict, appellant calls it) is not sustained by sufficient evidence, and is contrary to law. There is a bill of exceptions, which purports to set out the evidence. The correctness of the judgment depends on whether the evidence sustains the answer of set-off and tender. *We*have examined the bill of exceptions carefully.

It fails to show that'any evidence whatever was introduced or offered by the appellant to establish any of the items of set-off. While several of the witnesses speak of a note, of a due bill and of a judgment, there is in the record no evidence whatever establishing their existence, nor is there any stipulation or admission waiving the production of such proof. No note or due bill or judgment was put in evidence. It is possible that the bill of exceptions is incomplete, and does not contain all the evidence, but the statement in the bill is that it contains all the evidence given in the case, and, *497as has been held by this court, a bill of exceptions imports absolute verity.

Filed Jan. 14, 1891.

The general denial being pleaded by way of reply, the burthen was upon the appellant to establish his set-off by evidence.

Assuming, as we must, that the bill of exceptions does contain all of the evidence given in the case, we find nothing to justify us in reversing the judgment.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                    DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                          82
<SECURITIES>                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                   2,029
<ALLOWANCES>                    280
<INVENTORY>                     3,686
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                5,624
<PP&E>                          2,623
<DEPRECIATION>                  1,678
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  6,569
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           5,154
<BONDS>                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0
<PREFERRED>                     3,645
<COMMON>                        0
<OTHER-SE>                      (2,230)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    6,569
<SALES>                         16,337
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                16,337
<CGS>                           12,650
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   6,033
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              430
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 (2,776)
<INCOME-TAX>                    (67)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             (2,709)
<DISCONTINUED>                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0
<CHANGES>                       0
<NET-INCOME>                    (2,709)
<EPS-BASIC>                   (1.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                   (1.06)



</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

April 2 5 , 2016

s0414p 

# Order

Clerk April 2 5 , 2016

150569

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 150569

COA: 316063

Wayne CC: 12

- 008623

- FC

ERIC MELVIN SULLIVAN,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 28, 2014

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
No. 87-1309.

#### Scallio *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### Geo. D. Allen *v.*Jas. F. Vaughn.

Appeals — Bill of Exceptions — Filing by Consent.

After a new trial had heen refused, upon motion, two weeks time was given to file a bill of exceptions. Held, that the filing of samé in three weeks, in the clerk’s office by consent, is not evidence that the Appellate Court can take cognizance of.

APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT.

January 19, 1871.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Peters:

After judgment bad been rendered against appellant, a motion was made by bis attorney for a new trial, which was not disposed of until tbe 2nd of April, 1870, when it was overruled, to which appellant excepted — and *two weehs time*was then given to prepare and file a bill of exceptions, although all tbe evidence except that of one witness in tbe case *was*depositions.

*468Twyman; *for appellant.*

*Brown, for appellee.*

But instead of presenting and filling the bill of exceptions in court within the time allowed — and having the filing of it entered on the record, and thereby making it a part of the record, it was handed to the clerk in his office on the 21st of April, 1870, nearly a week after the time for filing it as fixed by the court had expired, and he then says it was filed in office by consent, which is no evidence that this court can take judicial cognizance of, that it was filed at all.

We are therefore constrained to disregard the paper purporting to be a bill of exceptions, and in-the absence of the evidence, and of anything appearing to the contrary we must presume the judgment of the court is correct. As to the bill of exceptions see *Tweedy vs. Commonwealth, 2 Met. 379. Vandever vs. Griffith, Ib. 425. Foreman vs. Brenham, (17 B. Mon. 607.)*

Wherefore the judgment must be affirmed.
#### Roscoe GOINS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Theodis BECK, Secretary, North Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 04-7544.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Feb. 18, 2005.

Decided: March 16, 2005.

Roscoe Goins, Appellant pro se.

Clarence Joe DelForge, III, North Carolina Department of Justice, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Roscoe Goins seeks to appeal from the grant of summary judgment in favor of the State on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. An appeal may not be taken to this court from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that jurists of reason would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001).

*132We' have reviewed the' record and conclude that Goins has not made the requisite showing. We therefore deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED*
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff(s)

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant(s)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address)

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you

are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,

whose name and address are:

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. 

You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

Case 2:15-cv-02572-GMS Document 2-1 Filed 12/18/15 Page 1 of 2
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE

(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date) .

’ I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or

’ I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

’ I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is

 designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)

on (date) ; or

’ I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or

’ Other (specify):

.

My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ .

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:

Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Server’s address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

Case 2:15-cv-02572-GMS Document 2-1 Filed 12/18/15 Page 2 of 2
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**192 CA 15-00235**  PRESENT: CARNI, J.P., LINDLEY, DEJOSEPH, NEMOYER, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF STATE OF NEW YORK, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
PAUL VANDERPOOL, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT. (APPEAL NO. 2.)

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (KATHLEEN M. TREASURE OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT.

EMMETT J. CREAHAN, DIRECTOR, MENTAL HYGIENE LEGAL SERVICE, BUFFALO (DIANE S. GASTLE OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (John L. Michalski, A.J.), entered January 13, 2015 in a proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 10. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied the motion of petitioner seeking leave to renew and reargue.
It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs.

Same memorandum as in State of New York v Vanderpool ([appeal No. 1] ___ AD3d ___ [Mar. 25, 2016]).

Entered: March 25, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**Certifications**

 

I, Eric J.Wedeen, certify that:

 

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of EFC Bancorp, Inc.(the “Registrant”);

 

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

 

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

The Registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Registrant andhave:

 

(a)          Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the Registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

(b)         Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the Registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

(c)          Disclosedin this report any change in the Registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the Registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theRegistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theRegistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

----

 

The Registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the Registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of Registrant’sboard of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

 

(a)          Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the Registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

 

(b)         Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the Registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

 

 
|   | May 13,  2005       |
|--------|--------------------------|
|   | /s/ Eric J.  Wedeen      |   |
|   | Eric J.  Wedeen          |
|   | Chief  Financial Officer |

 

----
For purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, Benjamin Hoskins, the Chief Executive and Financial Officer of IWI Holding Limited (the Company), hereby certifies that, to his knowledge:

(i)  the Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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



Date:  July 28, 2009

By: /s/ Benjamin Hoskins

President, Chief Financial Officer and Director
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Sandra L. Johnson","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/sandra-l-johnsonnasa-gov\/","title":"STS-76","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"J2cv0P8JtT\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/mission\/sts-76\/\">STS-76<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/mission\/sts-76\/embed\/#?secret=J2cv0P8JtT\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“STS-76” — NASA\" data-secret=\"J2cv0P8JtT\" 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\/2023\/03\/sts076-s-002.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":480}