alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 10.2

                      AMENDMENT TO SHARE PURCHASE AGREEMENT
                              DATED MARCH 31, 2015

                          BY AND AMONG T-REX OIL, INC.
                                       AND
                        WESTERN INTERIOR OIL & GAS CORP.
                                       AND
                                ITS SHAREHOLDERS


         For and in consideration of mutual benefits,  detriments, and promises,
and the  covenants  herein,  the  parties  agree to  amend  the  Share  Exchange
Agreement, as follows:

         Section 2.01(b) is hereby  deleted  and  substituted  therefore  is the
following:

         T-Rex shall purchase 17 percent of the Western Interior Oil & Gas Corp.
common  shares  as  described  as  follows  for  $1,001,333.75  within  6 months
hereafter:

                  McCutcheon Revocable Living Trust...........28,737
                  Leo A. Giangiacomo...........................2,337
                  Kathleen Giangiacomo...........................559
                  Ocana Investments LLC........................1,452

         Section  2.03  is  amended  to  delete   "9,000,000"   and   substitute
"7,470,000."

         Section 4.02 is hereby  amended to replace the first  sentence with the
following:

         "The authorized  capital stock of TRO consists of 275,000,000 shares of
TRO Common Stock and  50,000,000  shares of Preferred  Stock of which  7,809,857
common shares are outstanding on the date hereof  (excluding shares reserved for
options pursuant to Board Minutes.)."

         Schedule  1.01 is amended to be Schedule  2.01 and is amended to delete
"9,000,000" and substitute "7,470,000."

         Schedule  6.01(b)(6)  shall be amended to read "March 28, 2015" instead
of "April 30, 2015."

         Section 7.09 is amended as follows:

         "$300,000  payable to stockholders"  is amended to read  "$1,001,333.75
shareholder repurchase obligation." The last sentence of Section 7.09 is deleted
hereby.

         Section  8.02(g)(3)  is  redesignated  as (h)(3) and in (h)(3)  "7%" is
amended to "17%."

         Section 8.03(e)(1) is amended as follows:

         "1.01(a)" is amended to read "2.01(a)."

         Section 8.03(e)(2) is amended as follows:

         "," shall be changed to "2."



<PAGE>



         This amendment shall be deemed effective at March 28, 2015, the date of
the original Share Exchange Agreement.

         All other terms and shall remain unmodified.

Dated: April 9, 2015

T-Rex Oil, Inc.                             Western Interior Oil & Gas Corp.



By: __/s/__________________________         By: ___/s/_________________________
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                      48,759,109
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  489,074
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            50,045,027
<PP&E>                                      12,069,592
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,139,164)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              61,171,613
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,393,764
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     30,000
<COMMON>                                     3,649,779
<OTHER-SE>                                  48,562,504
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                61,171,613
<SALES>                                      1,752,012
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,752,012
<CGS>                                        1,703,414
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,703,414
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            19,066,179
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,990,232
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (22,007,813)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (22,007,813)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (22,007,813)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.01)


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-2029

ANICA ASHBOURNE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

TIMOTHY GEITHNER, Secretary, U.S. Department of Treasury 

Internal Revenue Service (global High Wealth), a Component 

of the U.S. Department of the Treasury; DONNA HANSBERRY, 

Director, GHW; DONNA PRESTIA, Assistant Director, GHW; 

THOMAS COLLINS, Territory Manager, GHW,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (8:11-

cv-02818-RWT; 8:11-cv-03199-RWT; 8:11-cv-03456-RWT)

Submitted: December 20, 2012 Decided: December 26, 2012

Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anica Ashbourne, Appellant Pro Se. Melanie Lisa Glickson, 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alex Gordon, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Anica Ashbourne appeals the district court’s order 

granting Defendants’ motion to transfer her consolidated actions 

to the United States District Court for the District of 

Columbia, dismissing her Equal Pay Act claim for lack of subject 

matter jurisdiction, and denying her motion to proceed 

pseudonymously. Limiting our review to the issues raised in the 

informal brief, see 4th Cir. R. 34(b), we affirm the district 

court’s order. Ashbourne v. Geithner, No. 8:11-cv-02818-RWT; 

8:11-cv-03199-RWT; 8:11-cv-03456-RWT (D. Md. July 12, 2012). 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 in the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4711 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4711

To amend title 38, United States Code, to eliminate reductions of basic 
pay for eligibility for basic educational assistance for veterans under 
                        the Montgomery GI Bill.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 24, 2004

Mr. Snyder (for himself and Mr. Boozman) introduced the following bill; 
   which was referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and in 
    addition to the Committee on Armed Services, for a period to be 
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration 
  of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 
                               concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 38, United States Code, to eliminate reductions of basic 
pay for eligibility for basic educational assistance for veterans under 
                        the Montgomery GI Bill.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Fairness in Veterans Education Act 
of 2004''.

SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF REDUCTIONS OF BASIC PAY.

    (a) Repeals.--Sections 3011(b) and 3012(c) of title 38, United 
States Code, are each amended by adding at the end the following new 
sentence: ``This subsection shall cease to have effect beginning on the 
first day of the first month that begins after the date of the 
enactment of the Fairness in Veterans Education Act of 2004.''.
    (b) Termination of Reductions in Progress.--Any reduction in the 
basic pay of an individual referred to in section 3011(b) of title 38, 
United States Code, by reason of such section 3011(b), or of any 
individual referred to in section 3012(c) of such title by reason of 
such section 3012(c), as of the date of the enactment of this Act shall 
cease commencing with the first month beginning after such date, and 
any obligation of such individual under such section 3011(b) or 
3012(c), as the case may be, as of the day before such date shall be 
deemed to be fully satisfied as of such date.
    (c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 3034(e)(1) of title 38, United 
States Code, is amended in the second sentence by striking ``as soon as 
practicable'' and all that follows through ``such additional times'' 
and inserting ``at such times''.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

 SOUTHERN DIVISION

SHANESTA TAITE LEWIS, : 

Petitioner, : 

v. : CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-00430-WS-N 

WARDEN CYNTHIA WHEELER-WHITE, : 

Respondent. : 

JUDGMENT

In accordance with the order entered on this date, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, 

and DECREED that this petition be and is hereby DENIED. It is further ORDERED that a 

certificate of appealability is DENIED. 

DONE this 29th day of July, 2010. 

s/WILLIAM H. STEELE 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 1:09-cv-00430-WS-N Document 17 Filed 07/29/10 Page 1 of 1
**Exhibit
32.1**
 
 **CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT**
 **TO
18 U.S.C SECTION 1350,**
 **AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**
 **SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
 
 
 In
connection with the 1 st Quarter
Report of **Bio-Lok
International Inc.** (the
“Registrant”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended January 31, 2005, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
and the undersigned officer certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to such
officer’s knowledge:
 
 a)
    The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, andb)
    The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Registrant as of the dates and the periods expressed in the
      Report.
 
 
 
 **Bio-Lok
International Inc.**
 
 /s/
Bruce L. Hollander
 Bruce L.
Hollander
 Chief
Executive Officer
 March 15,
2005
October 20, 2011



### JUDGMENT



## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

JOSE REFUGIO FLORES , Appellant

NO. 14

- 10

- 00976

- CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

____________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below, and having

inspected the record, this Court holds there was no error in the judgment requiring

reversal, but there was error in the judgment as entered, which is capable of reformatio n

by this Court. Therefore, the judgment is REFORMED , to reflect that appellant, Jose

Refugio Flores, pleaded "Not True" to the enhancement paragraph alleged in the

indictment.

The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED as REFORMED , and orders this

decision certified below for observance.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA *

 * CRIMINAL NO. 08-00042-CG 

v. *

 * 

OSHEA MONTRELL ODOM *

FINAL JUDGMENT OF FORFEITURE

WHEREAS, on March 24, 2008, a Plea Agreement was entered by Defendant, Oshea

Montrell Odom, and the United States of America, which Plea Agreement provided, inter alia,

that the Defendant, Oshea Montrell Odom, would enter a plea of guilty to Count Four of the

Indictment filed by the United States Attorney, charging him with possession with the intent to

distribute crack cocaine in violation of Title 21, United States Code, §841(a)(1). Pursuant to the

Plea Agreement, Defendant, Oshea Montrell Odom, also agreed to and confessed to the

forfeiture as set out below:

(1) One diamond and white gold cross necklace with chain seized from defendant

Oshea Montrell Odom on December 28, 2007;

(2) One bracelet with diamonds and yellow and green stones seized from the

defendant Oshea Montrell Odom on December 28, 2007.

WHEREAS, the United States properly published notice of the forfeiture of the abovedescribed property and the requirements for filing a claim for the property for 30 consecutive

days starting February 24, 2009, on www.forfeiture.gov, A Proof of Publication was filed on

March 26, 2009, (Doc. 51), specifying the details of this publication. No third-parties have come

forward to assert an interest in the subject property in the time required under Title 21, U.S.C., §

853(n). 

Case 1:08-cr-00042-CG-M Document 54 Filed 04/28/09 Page 1 of 2
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED

that the following property is forfeited to the United States of America pursuant to Title 21,

United States Code, Section 841(a)(1) and 853, and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(b),

for disposition according to law:

(1) One diamond and white gold cross necklace with chain seized from defendant

Oshea Montrell Odom on December 28, 2007;

(2) One bracelet with diamonds and yellow and green stones seized from the

defendant Oshea Montrell Odom on December 28, 2007.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the United States shall retain jurisdiction in the case

for the purpose of enforcing this Order; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall forward four (4) certified

copies of this Order to Assistant United States Attorney George F. May.

DONE and ORDERED this 28th day of April, 2009.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:08-cr-00042-CG-M Document 54 Filed 04/28/09 Page 2 of 2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-6845

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

NELSON EDDY WALKER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,

District Judge. (CR-97-91, CA-03-63)

Submitted: August 14, 2003 Decided: August 22, 2003

Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nelson Eddy Walker, Appellant Pro Se. Lisa Blue Boggs, Assistant

United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Nelson Eddy Walker seeks to appeal the district court’s order

accepting the recommendation of a magistrate judge to construe his

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as a successive motion filed under 28

U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) and denying it. The order is appealable only

if 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 reasonable

jurists 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,

 , 123 S. Ct. 1029, 1039 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.), cert.

denied, 534 U.S. 941 (2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Walker has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we 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
#### Nels Anderson v. William Courtright.

*Ejectment against tax-title claimant.*

Ejectment lies against one who, though out of possession, has notified the real owner that he claims the premises under a recorded tax-title. Comp. L. § 6207.

Case made from Newaygo.

Submitted October 13.

Decided October 26.

Ejectment. Plaintiff had judgment below".

Affirmed.

*Albert G. Day*for plaintiff.

Ejectment lies in Michigan against any adverse claimant of title: Comp. L. § 6207; *Clark v. Hall*19 Mich. 356; *Crane v. Seitz*30 Mich. 457; *Kinney v. Harrett*46 Mich. 87; *Mich. Central R. R. v. McNaughton*45 Mich. 87; a tax deed is *prima facie*evidence of title: *Ruggles v. Sands*40 Mich. 559.

*E. L. Gray*for defendant.

Ejectment can be brought only against some one actually in possession, exercising acts of ownership and claiming title: *Banyer v. Empie*5 Hill 48; *Redfield v. Utica & Syracuse R. R.*25 Barb. 54; *Child v. Chappell*9 N. Y. 251; Tyler on Ejectment 615; *Hamblin v. Warner*30 Mich. 97; *King v. Carpenter*37 Mich. 366.

Campbell, J.

In this case the only question is whether a party claiming under a recorded tax title and notifying the real owner of such claim can be properly sued in ejectment if out of possession.

The statute regulating ejectment allows it to be brought, where premises are vacant, against persons “ claiming title thereto” at the commencement of the suit, and declares that *“*all persons claiming any title to the jJi'emises adverse *162to that claimed by the plaintiff, may in all cases be made defendants in such action.” Comp. L. § 6207.

This language covers the case completely.

The judgment must be affirmed with costs.

The other Justices concurred.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

   <ARTICLE>                   5
   <LEGEND>
   THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
   CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND IS
   QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
   </LEGEND>
   <MULTIPLIER>                1,000
   <CURRENCY>                  U.S.
            
   <S>                         <C>
   <PERIOD-TYPE>                YEAR
   <FISCAL-YEAR-END>            APR-30-1998
   <PERIOD-START>               MAY-01-1997
   <PERIOD-END>                 APR-30-1998
   <EXCHANGE-RATE>                  1.00000
   <CASH>                            17,139
   <SECURITIES>                     101,626
   <RECEIVABLES>                    156,411
   <ALLOWANCES>                      15,653
   <INVENTORY>                      108,478
   <CURRENT-ASSETS>                 396,534
   <PP&E>                           191,514
   <DEPRECIATION>                   112,353
   <TOTAL-ASSETS>                   519,704
   <CURRENT-LIABILITIES>            107,812
   <BONDS>                                0
   <COMMON>                          11,769
   <PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                  0
   <PREFERRED>                            0
   <OTHER-SE>                       287,635
   <TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>     519,704
   <SALES>                          784,095
   <TOTAL-REVENUES>                 784,095
   <CGS>                            427,304
   <TOTAL-COSTS>                    732,348
   <OTHER-EXPENSES>                  (8,654)
   <LOSS-PROVISION>                       0
   <INTEREST-EXPENSE>                   434
   <INCOME-PRETAX>                   59,967  
   <INCOME-TAX>                      24,272
   <INCOME-CONTINUING>               35,695
   <DISCONTINUED>                         0
   <EXTRAORDINARY>                        0
   <CHANGES>                              0
   <NET-INCOME>                      35,695
   <EPS-PRIMARY>                       4.98
   <EPS-DILUTED>                       4.97
           
   
</TABLE>
Exhibit 32(ii)





CERTIFICATION  PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Eunice R. Campbell, Principal Financial Officer of Metaline Mining & Leasing Company (the Company) do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



1.  This Annual Report on Form 10KSB of the Company for the period ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



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

Date:  April 13, 2004

/s/ Eunice R. Campbell

___________________________

Eunice R. Campbell

Principal Financial Officer
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

November 12, 2015

N o. 04

- 15

- 00410

- CR

John BELTRAN

, Appellant

v.

The State of TexasAppellee/s

THE STATE OF TEXAS

, Appellee

From the 399th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012CR7747A

Honorable Ray Olivarri, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

The Appellant ’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief h as this date been received

and filed in the above styled and numbered cause. Extension of time to file the Appellant’s brief

is this date GRANTED. Time is extended to December 7, 2015.



### PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:

____________________________ KEITH E. HOT TLE

CLERK OF COURT

cc: Nicolas A. LaHood

District Attorney, Bexar County

101 W. Nueva, Suite 370

San Antonio, TX 78205 Debra L. Parker

111 Soledad St., Suite 300

San Antonio, TX 78205

- 2321
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-41735

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MOISES ULLOA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:15-CR-1036-1

Before KING, DENNIS, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Moises Ulloa pleaded guilty to reentering the United States after having 

previously been removed and was sentenced to 41 months of imprisonment, 

followed by three years of supervised release. In this appeal, he challenges the 

district court’s entry of a judgment under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2), which provides 

for a maximum sentence of 20 years for an alien whose prior removal was 

subsequent to a conviction for an “aggravated felony.” Ulloa correctly 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 23, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-41735 Document: 00513648093 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/23/2016
No. 15-41735

2

maintains that the qualifying prior felony, a 2012 New York conviction for 

attempted robbery, did not constitute an “aggravated felony” because he was 

not sentenced to a term of imprisonment of at least one year. See § 1326(b)(2); 

8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F). Accordingly, Ulloa’s conviction and sentence are 

AFFIRMED. We REMAND the case to the district court for the limited 

purpose of reforming the judgment to reflect Ulloa’s conviction under 

§ 1326(b)(1) instead of § 1326(b)(2).

 Case: 15-41735 Document: 00513648093 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/23/2016