alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 10.3

 

PAYMENT OF DEBT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS AGREEMENT

 

This Payment of Debt and Release of Claims Agreement (“Agreement”) is entered into by and between MIDWEST ENERGY EMISSIONS CORP., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) on behalf of itself, its subsidiaries and other corporate affiliates (collectively referred to herein as the “Company Group”), and JAY RIFKIN (“Rifkin”) (the Company Group and Rifkin are collectively referred to herein as the “Parties”) as of January 2, 2015 (the “Effective Date”).

 

RECITALS

 

1.  Rifkin was the Chief Executive Officer of China Youth Media, Inc. from 2005 until June 21, 2011, when he resigned from that position shortly after the effective date of that certain Agreement and Plan of Merger (“Merger Agreement”) by and among China Youth Media, Inc., a Delaware Corporation (“CHYU”), China Youth Media Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of CHYU, and Midwest Energy Emissions Corp., a North Dakota corporation, dated as of June 1, 2011.

 

2.  Rifkin has been a director of the board of the Company since 2006.

 

3.  The Company owes Rifkin $250,000 of accrued consulting fees (“Consulting Fees”) and $31,318 in accrued interest relating to interest accrued on certain other advances made by Rifkin to CHYU and the Company prior to the date hereof (“Accrued Interest”).

 

4.  The Company has agreed to pay Rifkin a total of $281,318 in cash upon the execution and delivery of this Agreement.

 

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises, covenants and agreements hereinafter set forth and of other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows:

 

AGREEMENT

 

Final Payment. In consideration for Rifkin’s execution of and compliance with this Agreement the Company Group agrees to immediately pay Rifkin a lump sum of $281,318 to be paid by wire transfer on the Effective Date.

 

Release. In exchange for the consideration provided in this Agreement, Rifkin and his heirs, executors, representatives, agents, successors and assigns (collectively, the “Rifkin Releasors”), release and discharge the Company Group from the Consulting Fees and the Accrued Interest as defined herein. Company Group, upon mutual execution of this Agreement, shall release and discharge the Rifkin Releasors from providing any further consulting services to the Company Group.

 

	 
	
1








	





  

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement as of the Effective Date above.

 

 

	 	MIDWEST ENERGY EMISSIONS CORP.	 
		
500 West Wilson Bridge Road, Suite 140


Worthington, OH 43085

	
	 	 	 	 
		By:	/s/ R. Alan Kelley	 
	 	Name:	R. Alan Kelley	 
	 	Title:	Chief Executive Officer 	 
	 	 	 	 
				
		By:	/s/ Jay Rifkin 	
		Name:	Jay Rifkin	


 

 

2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 10-QSB
FOR THE PERIOD ENDED 9-30-95 FOR USA INTERNATIONAL CHEMICAL, INC. AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000840399
<NAME> USA INTERNATIONAL CHEM
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                           1,244
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,244
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,581
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                            13
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     (2,350)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,244
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                10,560
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (10,560)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (10)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (11,360)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.01)
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1544 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1544

To adjust the boundary of Big Bend National Park in the State of Texas, 
                        and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 10, 2023

  Mr. Tony Gonzales of Texas introduced the following bill; which was 
             referred to the Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To adjust the boundary of Big Bend National Park in the State of Texas, 
                        and for other purposes.

    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 ``Big Bend National Park Boundary 
Adjustment Act''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

    In this Act:
            (1) Map.--The term ``map'' entitled ``Big Bend National 
        Park, Proposed Boundary Adjustment'', numbered 155/167,296, and 
        dated November 2022.
            (2) Park.--The term ``Park'' means the Big Bend National 
        Park, established pursuant to the Act of June 20, 1935 (49 
        Stat. 393; 16 U.S.C. 156).
            (3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
        of the Interior.

SEC. 3. BIG BEND NATIONAL PARK BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT.

    (a) Land Acquisition.--The Secretary is authorized to acquire 
approximately 6,100 acres of lands or interests in land generally 
depicted on the map as ``Tracts to Include in Boundary'' by donation, 
purchase from willing sellers, or exchange.
    (b) Availability of Map.--The map shall be on file and available 
for public inspection in the appropriate offices of the National Park 
Service, the Department of the Interior.
    (c) Boundary Revision and Administration.--Upon the acquisition of 
any lands or interests in land pursuant to subsection (a), the 
Secretary shall revise the boundary of the Park to include the 
acquisition, and shall administer such lands or interests in land as 
part of the Park in accordance with applicable laws and regulations.
    (d) Eminent Domain or Condemnation.--In carrying out this Act, the 
Secretary may not use eminent domain or condemnation.
                                 <all>
```
#### Stephen E. Jones, Assignee, *v.*Wm. H. Boone and Wife.

Husband and Wife — Wife’s Land Not Subject to Husband’s Debts.

Land received by a wife by descent from ber father is not subject to tbe payment of ber husband’s debts.

APPEAL FROM SHELBY CIRCUIT COURT.

November 10, 1873.

*288
      *Harwood, for appellant.*

*Robert, for appellees.*

Opinion by

Judge Pryor:

In this case the evidence shows beyond doubt that the wife of the appellee, Mrs. Boone, owned sixty-five acres of land in her own right, derived by descent from her father; that the husband sold it for $45 per acre; that he used the money for three or four years and then converted $2,300 in a home containing twenty-six acres of land for his wife, and had the deed made to her. The proof of two or three witnesses other than Daniel Boone, is to the effect “that at and prior to the sale by the husband of the wife’s land it was agreed on his part that he would re-invest it for her benefit, the wife insisting upon it, as a condition to her parting with the title.” This land of the wife was not subject to the debts of the husband. His creditors had no right to look to it for payment when they gave him credit. The husband was then insolvent or with no visible means out of which creditors could have their demands satisfied. The wife has been guilty of no fraud, and the statement of her witnesses should not be disregarded when there is nothing in the assertion of her rights inconsistent with the legal and equitable claim she had upon her husband even against the claims of his creditors. The deed has been made and the contract fully executed. This was prior to the assignment to the appellant.

Judgment affirmed.
Exhibit 23.2

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Experts" in the Registration Statements on Forms S-8 (File Nos. 333-125701 and
333-104724) and Forms S-3 (File Nos. 333-129784, 333-114258 and 333-134992) of Mines Management, Inc. and to the incorporation by
reference therein of our report dated February 26, 2007 with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Mines Management, Inc. included in its Annual Report
(Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2006, as amended, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

| |  | LeMaster & Daniels PLLC    
| |  | ---------------------------
| |  | /s/ LeMaster & Daniels PLLC

March 26,
2007

---



QuickLinks
Memorandum of Understanding with American Software, Inc.



 EXHIBIT 10.1 
  
 Memorandum of Understanding 
 between American Software, Inc. and 
 Logility, Inc. 
  
 PURPOSE 
  
 This Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) is entered into as of May 1, 2005 (the “Effective Date”) by American
Software, Inc. (hereinafter “ASI”) and Logility, Inc. (hereinafter “LGTY”) for the purpose of defining the roles and responsibilities of the parties as it relates to resale of New Generation Computing’s
(“NGC”) products. 
  
 GENERAL PROVISIONS

  
 A. Term and Termination 
 This MOU will remain in effective for twelve (12) months from the Effective Date and shall automatically renew for successive one-year periods, unless terminated by
either party for any reason with 30 days prior written notice. 
  
 B. Fees 
 1. Royalty – LGTY will pay a 30% royalty to ASI for the resale of NGC products. Such royalty
will be calculated based on the recognizable license fee revenues of the transaction after discounts and revenue recognition adjustments (e.g. reductions due to maintenance or services below fair market value). Furthermore, such discounts and
adjustments will be shared equally among ALL software components in the transaction based on relative List prices. 
 2. Maintenance –
maintenance (post-contract support) fees, including any resulting from revenue recognition adjustments, will be shared between the companies based on pro-rata license fees as calculated above. If, however, LGTY invoices Customer for 100% of the
contractual maintenance, then LGTY will remit within 30 days of receipt from Customer, ASI’s pro-rata share. 
 3. Professional Services
– any fees, subsequent to any revenue recognition adjustments, will be recognized by the party providing such services. 
  
 Example 
 Assumptions:
LGTY contracts with Customer X for $205k of software (including NGC products), plus maintenance at 18% per year ($36,900; assuming 18% represents fair value for both companies) and 2 free days of training (FMV = $5k) to be provided by LGTY.

  
 

 
  
 Result: LGTY would
recognize $185,000 in license fees net of a $15k royalty to ASI ($150k for LGTY products and $35k, net, for NGC products). ASI would recognize $50,000 in license fees and record a $35k third-party 








 
commission expense. The party performing the related services would recognize $5,000 in Services when performed. LGTY and ASI would recognize $27,675 (18% of
the $153,750) and $9,225 (18% of the $51,250), respectively, in maintenance revenue ratably over the related period. 
  
 C. Amendments 
 This MOU may be modified or
amended provided that any such modification or amendment is in writing and is signed by both parties. 
  
 D. Entirety of MOU 
 All terms and conditions
of this MOU are embodied herein. No other terms and conditions will be considered a part of this MOU unless expressly agreed upon in writing and signed by both parties. 
  
 BY SIGNATURE, THE PARTIES AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THIS MOU AS OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE. 
  
  

									
	AMERICAN SOFTWARE, INC.	 	 	 	 LOGILITY,INC.

					
	BY:	 	/S/ JAMES C. EDENFIELD	 	 	 	BY:	 	/S/ J. MICHAEL EDENFIELD
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

EUGENE CRAWFORD, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION 08-0714-KD-B 

)

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, )

Commissioner of Social Security, )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

This action is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate

Judge made under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), and dated January 29, 2010 (doc. 16) and the

plaintiff Eugene Crawford’s objection (doc. 17). After due and proper consideration of all

pleadings in this file, and a de novo determination of those portions of the recommendation to

which objection is made, the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, is adopted as the opinion

of this Court.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security

denying Crawford benefits be AFFIRMED. 

DONE this the 18th day of February, 2010. 

 s / Kristi K. DuBose 

KRISTI K. DuBOSE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-00714-KD-B Document 18 Filed 02/18/10 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : 

 : 

vs. : CRIM. ACTION 10-00100-KD 

 : 

RAY LEBARRON ODOM :

ORDER

This action is before the Court on Defendant Ray Lebarron 

Odom’s Motion for a Continuance. (Doc. 50). As grounds for said 

motion, defense counsel avers that he was appointed to represent 

Defendant on July 26, 2010, that he has been in trial in another 

federal action since August 2, 2010, and as a result, he needs 

additional time in which to confer with Defendant and prepare 

this case for trial or other resolution. The Government does not 

oppose Defendant’s continuance request. 

Upon consideration, the undersigned finds that a 

continuance is appropriate in this case, and that the ends of 

justice served by continuing this action outweigh the best 

interests of the public and Defendant in a speedy trial. 18 

U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(7)(A). Specifically, the undersigned finds 

that the request to continue this action so that defense counsel 

is allotted sufficient time in which to work with Defendant in 

order to prepare this case for trial or other resolution is 

reasonable under the circumstances. 18 U.S.C.A. §3161(h)(7)(B). 

Case 1:10-cr-00100-KD-M Document 51 Filed 08/10/10 Page 1 of 2
2 

Accordingly, Defendant’s request for a continuance is GRANTED. 

This case is hereby CONTINUED to the October 2010 criminal term, 

with jury selection commencing on October 4, 2010. For purposes 

of the Speedy Trial Act, any delay resulting from this 

continuance is excludable pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A). 

 Counsel for Defendant is directed to file, by August 20,

2010 a Speedy Trial Waiver executed by Defendant and his 

counsel. 

 The Clerk is DIRECTED to refer this case to Magistrate 

Judge Nelson. 

 DONE this 9th day of August, 2010. 

 /s/ SONJA F. BIVINS 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:10-cr-00100-KD-M Document 51 Filed 08/10/10 Page 2 of 2
#### In re Quilliam. In re Woodall.

*203(Nos. 21321 and 21322

Decided June 13, 1949.)

*Mr. Frank C. Lyons,*for petitioners.

*Mr. Frank T. Cullitan,*prosecuting attorney, for respondents.

*Per Curiam.*

It is the view of this court that the question here presented is one which seeks to invoke the jurisdiction of this court to pass upon a question which it is beyond the power of this court to consider, that is, whether a sister state'is violating the constitutional rights of one charged and convicted of crime by its courts.

If the constitutional rights of a prisoner are being violated in the sister state, such question should be presented by proper proceedings to the courts of that state for remedy. The only remedy that would be 'available by allowing the relief here requested would be to release the prisoners in the state of Ohio, thus in effect commuting their sentences for serious crimes of which they had been found guilty.

Section 2, Article 4 of the Constitution of the United States, provides:

“A person charged in any state with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another state, shall on demand of the executive authority of the state from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the state having jurisdiction of the crime.”

( The purpose of this provision of the Constitution is to prevent a state from becoming an asylum for per*204sons charged with crime or for convicts from another state.

In *Drew, Sheriff,*v. *Thaw,*235 U. S., 432, at page 439, 59 L. Ed., 302, 35 S. Ct., 137, a case involving an escapee from an institution, Justice Holmes stated:

“* * ***In extradition proceedings, oven when, as here, a humane opportunity is afforded to test them upon habeas corpus, the purpose of the writ is not to substitute the judgment of another tribunal upon the facts or the law of the matter to be tried. The Constitution says nothing about habeas corpus in this connection, but peremptorily requires that upon proper demand the person charged shall be delivered up to be removed to the state having jurisdiction of the crime. Art. 4, Sec. 2, *Pettibone*v. *Nichols,*203 U. S., 192, 205, 51 L. Ed., 148, 153, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep., 111, 7 Ann. Cas., 1047. There is no discretion allowed, no inquiry into motives. *Kentucky*v. *Denison,*24 How., 66, 16 L. Ed., 717; *Pettibone*v. *Nichols,*203 U. S., 192, 203, 51 L. Ed., 148, 153, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep., 111, 7 Ann. Cas., 1047.”

The foregoing authority dealt with the case of one charged with crime who had not yet been convicted. In the instant cases we are dealing with petitioners who have been found guilty of serious crimes and who have escaped from the penal institution, in which they had been confined. The law of that case must, therefore, have greater force under the facts of these cases.

For the foregoing reasons the judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

*Judgments affirmed.*

Skeel, P. J., Hurd and Doyle, JJ., concur.

Doyle, J., of the Ninth Appellate District, sitting by designation in the Eighth Appellate District.
11438.

#### Ellis *v.*The State.

Decided June 15, 1920.

Conviction of manslaughter; from Clarice superior court — Judge Cobb. February 25, 1920.

Luke, J.

1. Motions for continuance, while addressed largely to the discretion of the trial judge, must come up to the requirement of law as to diligence, service of subpoena, etc. In this case no legal showing for a continuance was made, and it was not error to overrule the motion for a continuance.

2. The verdict of voluntary manslaughter was authorized by the evidence, and it was not error to overrule the motion for a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.*

*395
      *Thomas & Thomas,*for plaintiff in error.

*W. O. Dean, solicitor-general,*contra.
* 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.

** Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics , 403 U.S. 388 (1971). United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED February 23, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-10405 Conference Calendar

ALFREDO ALVAREZ, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus NFN ORTEGA, Detective, Forth Worth Police Department; ROBERT RANGEL, Drug Enforcement Administration Agent; TERRI MOORE, Assistant United States Attorney; NEIL DURRANCE, Public Defender; KEVIN FITCHETT, Detective, Fort Worth Police Department; PAUL GARTNER, C.D. Deputy Chief; LIEUTENANT UNKNOWN, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:04-CV-403-Y

-------------------- Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Alfredo Alvarez, federal prisoner # 30170-077, appeals the dismissal of his Bivens ** complaint and moves for appointment of counsel. The district court held in pertinent part that Alvarez’s claims were barred by Heck v. Humphrey , 512 U.S. 477,No. 05-10405 -2- 486 (1994). Alvarez has failed to brief this issue and therefore has waived its review. See Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). Alvarez’s appeal is without arguable merit and is therefore dismissed as frivolous. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2. His motion for appointment of counsel is denied. See Ulmer v. Chancellor , 691 F.2d 209, 212 (5th Cir. 1982). The dismissal of his appeal as frivolous and the district court’s dismissal of his complaint as frivolous and for failure to state a claim constitute two strikes for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons , 103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir. 1996). Alvarez is cautioned that if he obtains three strikes, he will not be able to proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g).
APPEAL DISMISSED; APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL DENIED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix A – Item 320-2: UR.2.4. Foundations, Supports, and Clearance 

S&T –A1 

Appendix A 

NIST Handbook 44 – Scales 

Item: 320-2: 

UR.2.4. Foundations, Supports, and Clearance 

 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix A – Item 320-2: UR.2.4. Foundations, Supports, and Clearance 

S&T - A2 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix A – Item 320-2: UR.2.4. Foundations, Supports, and Clearance 

S&T –A3 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix A – Item 320-2: UR.2.4. Foundations, Supports, and Clearance 

S&T - A4 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix A – Item 320-2: UR.2.4. Foundations, Supports, and Clearance 

S&T –A5 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix A – Item 320-2: UR.2.4. Foundations, Supports, and Clearance 

S&T - A6 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix A – Item 320-2: UR.2.4. Foundations, Supports, and Clearance 

S&T –A7 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix A – Item 320-2: UR.2.4. Foundations, Supports, and Clearance 

S&T - A8 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix A – Item 320-2: UR.2.4. Foundations, Supports, and Clearance 

S&T –A9 

 
S&T Committee 2014 Final Report 

Appendix A – Item 320-2: UR.2.4. Foundations, Supports, and Clearance 

S&T - A10 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK