alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-10.50



 Exhibit 10.50 

THIRD AMENDMENT TO 

AMENDMENT, MODIFICATION, AND SUPPLEMENT TO 

SECURITIES PURCHASE AMENDMENT 

Dated May 15, 2015 
 The
undersigned parties hereby amend that certain Amendment, Modification and Supplement to the Securities Purchase Agreement, dated as of March 24, 2015, as amended on April 8, 2015 and April 24, 2015, (the “Amendment”) by and among
Medbox, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”) and Redwood Management, LLC (also acting on behalf of Redwood Fund III Ltd., Redwood Fund II LLC and RDW Capital, LLC) (the “Purchaser”) as of the date hereof as
follows: 
 Section 2.1(d) of the Amendment shall hereby be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following language: 

“(d) a fourth Tranche in the Principal Amount of $1,000,000 for a Subscription Amount of $1,000,000, $150,000 of which shall be closed on
each of May 15, May 22, and May 29, 2015 and $550,000 of which shall be closed within two (2) days of the SEC Effective Date (in the aggregate, the “Fourth Modified Closing”), provided however, that the Third Modified Closing has
occurred and each of the conditions set out in Section 2.4 hereof shall have been satisfied;” 
 Except as expressly provided herein, all other
figures, terms and conditions in the Amendment shall remain unmodified and in full force and effect as originally written. 
 This amendment may be executed
in counterpart, all of which when taken together shall be considered one and the same agreement and shall become effective when counterparts have been signed by each party and delivered to each other party. 

[The remainder of this page has been intentionally left blank.] 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this amendment to be executed as a deed on the
date first above written. 
  

			
	MEDBOX, INC.
		
	By:    		




			Name: C. Douglas Mitchell
			Title: Chief Financial Officer


  

			
	 REDWOOD MANAGEMENT, LLC (on behalf

of itself and Redwood Fund III Ltd., Redwood Fund II LLC and RDW Capital, LLC)

		
	By:    		 





			Name: John DeNobile
			Title:   Manager


 [Signature page to Third Amendment to Amendment, Modification and Supplement to Securities
Purchase Agreement]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

EDDIE LAMANQUIL SMITH,

#12876-003,

)

)

)

Petitioner, )

) CRIMINAL NO. 12-00256-CG-B

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-0167-CG-B

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Respondent. )

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of all portions of this file deemed relevant to the issue 

raised, and a de novo determination of those portions of the recommendation to which objection 

is made, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1)(B) and dated April 15, 2016, is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court. Accordingly, 

Petitioner’s motions for evidentiary hearing (Docs. 69,71,72) and his § 2255 Motion to Vacate, 

Set Aside, or Correct Sentence (Doc. 52) are hereby DENIED.

DONE and ORDERED this 9th day of June, 2016.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

 SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:12-cr-00256-CG-B Document 78 Filed 06/09/16 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JASON W. BRADWELL, :

 : 

Plaintiff, :

 :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 09-0710-KD-M 

 : 

MICHAEL HAYLEY, et al., : 

 :

Defendants. : 

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of all portions of this

file deemed relevant to the issues raised, and there having been

no objections filed, the Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) is ADOPTED

as the opinion of this Court. It is ORDERED that this action be

and is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to

prosecute and to obey the Court's Order.

DONE this 6th day of January, 2010.

s/ Kristi K. DuBose

KRISTI K. DuBOSE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00710-KD-M Document 5 Filed 01/07/10 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 10.2


 


FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


 


This First Amendment to Employment Agreement (this “Amendment”), dated as of December ___, 2008, is entered into by and between Mannatech, Incorporated (the “Company”) and Robert A. Sinnott, MNS, PhD (“Employee”).


 


RECITALS


 


This Amendment amends that certain Employment Agreement, effective as of October 5, 2007, by and between the Company and Employee (the “Employment Agreement”).


 


STATEMENT OF AGREEMENT


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto hereby agree as follows:


 


1.                    The first sentence of Section 1.2 of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows:


 


“The Employee shall serve as Senior Vice President and Global Chief Science Officer of the Company, with the authority, duties and responsibilities described herein and those customarily incident to such office.”


 


2.                   This Amendment may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.


 


3.                   This Amendment and the Employment Agreement and the documents referred to herein and therein constitute the entire agreement among the parties and supersede in all respects any other agreement or understanding among the parties.  No party shall be liable or bound to any other party in any manner by any warranties, representations, or covenants except as specifically set forth herein or therein.


 


4.                    In case any one or more of the provisions contained in this Amendment should be invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any respect, the validity, legality or enforceability of the remaining provisions contained herein shall not in any way be affected or impaired thereby.


 


5.                    This Amendment shall be governed by, and enforced and construed under, the laws of the State of Texas.


 


[SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]


 








IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the date first above written.


 


	 	
COMPANY:


	 	
	 	
MANNATECH, INCORPORATED


	 	 	 
	 	
By:

	   
	 	 	
Wayne Badovinus


	 	 	
President and Chief Executive Officer


	 	 	 
	 	
EMPLOYEE:


	 	 	 
	 	    
	 	
Robert A. Sinnott, MNS, PhD
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 244 (Friday, December 19, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 75862]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29712]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

United States Mint


Pricing for the 2015 American Eagle One Ounce Silver Proof Coin

AGENCY: United States Mint, Department of the Treasury.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The United States Mint is announcing the price of the 2015 
American Eagle One Ounce Silver Proof Coin. The price of the American 
Eagle One Ounce Silver Proof Coin will be lowered from $52.95 to 
$48.95.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: J. Marc Landry, Acting Associate 
Director for Sales and Marketing; United States Mint; 801 9th Street 
NW., Washington, DC 20220; or call 202-354-7500.

    Authority: 31 U.S.C. 5111, 5112 & 9701.

    Dated: December 15, 2014.
Richard A. Peterson,
Deputy Director, United States Mint.
[FR Doc. 2014-29712 Filed 12-18-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-37-P
11412.

#### Lambert *et al. v.*Cook.

Decided October 19, 1920.

Action for damages; from Troup superior court—Judge Terrell. March 1, 1920.

*E. A. Jones, M. U. Mooly,*for plaintiff in error.

*E. T, Moon,*contra.

Jenkins, P. J.

Under the statute rule of civil liability, the procurer of a wrong is a joint wrong-doer. “In all cases he who maliciously procures an injury to be done to another, whether it be an actionable wrong or a breach of contract, is a joint wrong-doer, and may be sued either alone or jointly with the actor.” Civil Code (1910), § 44G9. The word “ procure,” as here used, does not require the lending of assistance in the actual perpetration of the wrong “ done by another; ” but if one, acting only through advice, counsel, persuasion, or command, succeeds in procuring any person to commit an actionable wrong, the procurer becomes liable for the injury, either singly or jointly with the actual perpetrator. The charge of the court was in accordance with the foregoing statement of law, and the verdict for the plaintiff was authorized by the evidence.

*Judgment affirmed,.*

*Stephens and Smith, JJ., concur.*
Exhibit 12

                                MOBIL CORPORATION
                COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES 
                     (In millions, except for ratio amount) 


                                             Year Ended December 31,
                                    ---------------------------------------
                                     1991    1992    1993    1994     1995
                                    ------  ------  ------  ------   ------
Income Before Change in   
  Accounting Principle(s) ........  $1,920  $1,308  $2,084  $1,759   $2,376
Add:
  Income taxes ...................   2,105   1,567   1,931   1,919    2,015  
  Portion of rents representative
    of interest factor ...........     344     319     339     340      368
  Interest and amortization
    of debt discount expense .....     713     612     529(a)  461      467   
  Earnings (greater) less 
    than dividends from 
    equity affiliates ............    (151)     36     265     (40)     (51)
                                    ------  ------  ------  ------   ------
Income as Adjusted ...............  $4,931  $3,842  $5,148  $4,439   $5,175    
                                    ======  ======  ======  ======   ======

Fixed Charges:
  Interest and amortization 
    of debt discount expense .....  $  713  $  612  $  529(a)  461   $  467    
  Capitalized interest ...........      20      42      42      37       47
  Portion of rents representative
    of interest factor ...........     344     319     339     340      368
                                    ------  ------  ------  ------   ------
Total Fixed Charges ..............  $1,077  $  973  $  910  $  838   $  882
                                    ======  ======  ======  ======   ======

Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges     4.6     3.9     5.7(a)  5.3      5.9    
                                    ------  ------  ------  ------   ------



For the years ended December 31, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994 and 1995, Fixed Charges 
exclude $42 million, $37 million, $31 million, $37 million and $28 million,
respectively, of interest expense attributable to debt issued by the Mobil Oil
Corporation Employee Stock Ownership Plan Trust and guaranteed by Mobil.

(a) Excludes the favorable effect of $205 million of interest benefits from 
    the resolution of prior-period tax issues.
  


Mobil                                 - 26 -
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1632 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1632

  To eliminate taxpayer funding for the partisan broadcasting outlets 
known as National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service, and 
                          for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 17, 2023

Mr. Jackson of Texas introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To eliminate taxpayer funding for the partisan broadcasting outlets 
known as National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service, 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 ``No Partisan Radio and Partisan 
Broadcasting Services Act'' or the ``NPR and PBS Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON FEDERAL FUNDING FOR NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO AND 
              PUBLIC BROADCASTING SERVICE.

    (a) In General.--After the date of the enactment of this Act, no 
Federal funds may, directly or indirectly, be made available to or used 
to support an organization described in subsection (b), including 
through the payment of dues to or the purchase of programming from such 
organization by a public broadcast station using Federal funds received 
by such station.
    (b) Organizations Described.--The organizations described in this 
subsection are--
            (1) the organization known, as of the date of the enactment 
        of this Act, as ``National Public Radio'';
            (2) the organization known, as of the date of the enactment 
        of this Act, as the ``Public Broadcasting Service''; and
            (3) any successor organization to an organization described 
        in paragraph (1) or (2).
                                 <all>
```
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DAVID L. JOHNSON, AIS 134016, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CA 11-0228-CG-C

PENTON ASHWORTH, et al., :

Defendants. :

JUDGMENT

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

ADJUDGED, and DECREED that, pursuant to Rule 55(b)(2) of the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure, judgment by default is rendered in favor of plaintiff David L. 

Johnson and against defendant Donald Bell in an amount to be determined 

following the evidentiary hearing to be held in February of 2013.

DONE and ORDERED this 12th day of July, 2012.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-00228-CG-C Document 110 Filed 07/12/12 Page 1 of 1
1... See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-08-161-CR

NO. 02-08-162-CR

FREDERICK D. OSBORNE APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

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

FROM THE 371ST DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

Appellant Frederick D. Osborne appeals his convictions and sentences for

aggravated sexual assault of a child. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §

22.021(a)(2)(B) (Vernon Supp. 2008). We will affirm.

Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to

withdraw as counsel and a brief in support of that motion. In the brief, counsel
2

avers that, in her professional opinion, the appeal is frivolous. Counsel’s brief

and motion meet the requirements of Anders v. California by presenting a

professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable

grounds for relief. 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). We gave appellant

the opportunity to file a pro se brief, and he has not filed one. The State also

has not filed a brief.

Once an appellant’s court-appointed attorney files a motion to withdraw

on the ground that the appeal is frivolous and fulfills the requirements of

Anders, this court is obligated to undertake an independent examination of the

record. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991);

Mays v. State, 904 S.W.2d 920, 922–23 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1995, no

pet.). Only then may we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. See Penson v.

Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988).

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief. We agree

with counsel that this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit; we find

nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. See Bledsoe v.

State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see also Meza v.
3

State, 206 S.W.3d 684, 685 n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Accordingly, we

grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgments. 

PER CURIAM

PANEL: MEIER, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: April 30, 2009
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-2000
<CASH>                                          56,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,347,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                    50,000
<INVENTORY>                                    116,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,627,000
<PP&E>                                      11,443,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,714,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,611,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,988,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       137,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,539,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,611,000
<SALES>                                      9,002,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,002,000
<CGS>                                        6,478,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,078,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                63,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             290,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 93,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (109,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            202,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   202,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .07


</TABLE>
Continuing Abatement Order filed May 18, 2012.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-11-00372-CV

____________

MATTHEW VERE, Appellant

V.

AFFORDABLE POWER, L.L.P., Appellee

On Appeal from County Civil Court at Law No. 1

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 956968

CONTINUING ABATEMENT ORDER

On December 14, 2011, the parties notified this court that the parties had reached an 

agreement to settle the issues on appeal. On January 5, 2012, we abated this appeal. As

of the date of this order, the parties have not filed a motion to dismiss the appeal or other 

dispositive motion.

The appeal will be reinstated on this court’s active docket in ten (10) days from the 

date of this order. Appellant's brief will be due forty (40) days from the date of this order.

PER CURIAM
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1505 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1505

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To modify the prohibition on recognition by United States courts of 
 certain rights relating to certain marks, trade names, or commercial 
                                 names.

    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 ``No Stolen Trademarks Honored in 
America Act of 2023''.

SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF PROHIBITION.

    Section 211 of the Department of Commerce and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act, 1999 (as contained in section 101(b) of division A 
of Public Law 105-277; 112 Stat. 2681-88) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a)(2)--
                    (A) by inserting ``or entity of the executive 
                branch'' after ``U.S. court'';
                    (B) by striking ``by a designated national''; and
                    (C) by inserting before the period ``that was used 
                in connection with a business or assets that were 
                confiscated unless the original owner of the mark, 
                trade name, or commercial name, or the bonafide 
                successor-in-interest has expressly consented'';
            (2) in subsection (b)--
                    (A) by inserting ``or entity of the executive 
                branch'' after ``U.S. court''; and
                    (B) by striking ``by a designated national or its 
                successor-in-interest'';
            (3) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (e);
            (4) by inserting after subsection (c) the following:
    ``(d) Subsections (a)(2) and (b) of this section shall apply only 
if the person or entity asserting the rights knew or had reason to know 
at the time when the person or entity acquired the rights asserted that 
the mark, trade name, or commercial name was the same as or 
substantially similar to a mark, trade name, or commercial name that 
was used in connection with a business or assets that were 
confiscated.''; and
            (5) in subsection (e), as so redesignated, by striking ``In 
        this section:'' and all that follows through ``(2) The term'' 
        and inserting ``In this section, the term''.

            Passed the House of Representatives November 13, 2023.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
118th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 1505

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

  To modify the prohibition on recognition by United States courts of 
 certain rights relating to certain marks, trade names, or commercial 
                                 names.
```
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

April 24, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver 132927 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 132927 COA: 262679 Kent CC: 04-002119-FC COREY WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the November 21, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

d0416 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

April 24, 2007

Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

TERRELL MICKELS,

#11733-003

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Petitioner, CRIMINAL NO. 10-152-WS-B

CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-00357-WS-B

vs.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

* 

Defendants. *

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of all portions of this file deemed relevant to the 

issues raised, and a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation 

to which objection is made, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made 

under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court. It is ORDERED 

that Mickels’ habeas petition be DISMISSED as barred by the statute of limitations and that he 

is not entitled to a certificate of appealability, and consequently, is not entitled to appeal in forma 

pauperis.

DONE this 29th day of June, 2015.

		s/WILLIAM H. STEELE

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:10-cr-00152-WS-N Document 152 Filed 06/29/15 Page 1 of 1