alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSIONWashington, D.C. 20549___________________FORM 10-KSB/A___________________________ ýANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO
SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934  For the fiscal year ended June 30, 2007  ̈TRANSITION REPORT
PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934  Commission file number0-52493  VERACITY
MANAGEMENT GLOBAL, INC.(Exact Name Of Registrant
As Specified In Its Charter) Delaware
    43-1889792(State of Incorporation)
    (I.R.S. Employer
    Identification No.)2655 LeJeune
    Road, Suite 311, Coral Gables, FL
    33134(Address of Principal Executive Offices)
    (ZIP Code) Registrant's
Telephone Number, Including Area Code: (786) 777-0808 Securities
Registered Pursuant to Section 12(g) of The Act: Common Stock, $0.001 Indicate by check
mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for
such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has
been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. YesxNo ̈ Indicate by check
mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange
Act). Yes  ̈No x Indicate by check
mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not
contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of the registrant's knowledge, in
the definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of
this Form 10-KSB or any amendment to this Form 10-KSB. ̈ On September 24,
2007, the aggregate market value of the 3,426,490 common stock held by non-affiliates of
the Registrant was approximately $1,130,741. On September 24, 2007, the Registrant had
33,181,543 shares of common stock outstanding. Indicate by check
    mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, or a
    non-accelerated filer.Large
    accelerated filer  ̈
    Accelerated filer  ̈
    Non-accelerated
    filerx




**EXPLANATORY
NOTE:**

Veracity Management Global, Inc. (the Company") is amending its Annual
Report on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2007 (the Original
10-KSB) to correct in this Amendment on Form 10-KSB/A the check box on the cover
sheet that the Company is not a shell company (as
defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).   SIGNATURES Pursuant to the
requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this report has been signed below by
the following persons on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities and on the date
indicated. Date: December 3,
2007 **Veracity Management Global,
    Inc.**By:Michael
    Rideman, CEO and Co-Chairman/s/ Michael RidemanBy: Richard
    Grassano, CFO
    /s/ Richard Grassano
#### In the Matter of Johnny Downs, Appellant, v New York State Executive Department et al., Respondents.

Submitted May 17, 2010;

decided June 29, 2010

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Walter J. Roache, Appellant, v S.A. Connell, as Superintendent of Oneida Correctional Facility, Respondent.

Submitted May 11, 2009;

decided June 24, 2009

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution.
Exhibit 10.36


March 30, 2007


Mr.
Chuck Huebner


93
Nayatt Road


Barrington, RI  02806




	
  Re:

  	
  Your Employment Agreement with Activision, Inc.

  
	
   

  	
  dated May 10, 2005 (the “Employment Agreement”)

  






 


Dear Chuck:


This letter confirms our agreement to amend the terms of the Employment
Agreement in accordance with the provisions set forth below.  Capitalized terms not defined in this letter
shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Employment Agreement.


The specific amendments to the Employment Agreement are as follows:


1.         In fulfillment of all reimbursement, payment or other
obligations of Activision pursuant to Paragraph 6(a) of the Employment
Agreement, Activision agrees to pay you the net amount of $240,000, a sum that
represents the mutually agreed upon projected relocation related expenses.  Activision further agrees to pay on your
behalf the sum of $97,962.07.  This
amount represents the estimated tax liability of the portions of the above
referenced relocation costs that will potentially be considered taxable income
and for which Activision has agreed to provide “gross-up” coverage. These
amounts will be paid immediately upon your execution of this letter.  Upon payment of such amounts, Activision
shall have no further obligations pursuant to Paragraph 6(a) of the Employment
Agreement.


Except as specifically set
forth above, the Employment Agreement shall remain unmodified and in full force
and effect.


If the foregoing accurately
reflects your understanding of the provisions of your Employment Agreement that
are being amended pursuant to this letter, please so indicate by signing in the
space provided below.


	
  Very truly yours,

  
	
   

  
	
   

  
	
  George Rose

  
	
  General Counsel

  
	
   

  
	
   

  
	
  ACCEPTED AND AGREED TO:

  
	
   

  
	
   

  
	
  /s/ CHUCK HUEBNER

  	
   

  
	
  Chuck Huebner

  



 



 1
#### Melenthin *v.*Keith.

*(Circuit Court, D. Minnesota.*

June Term, 1883.)

Ejectment—Title of Plaintiff—Land Contbact.

A party who has paid part oi' the purchase money for land, and has made a contract with the owner that he may go into possession and cultivate the land and build thereon, and receive a deed therefor when the balance of the purchase money is paid, has sufficient title to maintain an action of ejectment.

Millek, Justice.

This is in the nature of an action of ejectment, brought to the United States circuit from the state court, by removal. The defendant makes a motion for judgment on the face of the papers, on the ground that the plaintiff’s title is not a legal title, being simply a paper, or document, which the railroad company, who had the legal title, executed to him. The strict legal title—the full title—did not inure to the party who purchased the land of the railroad; and counsel for defendant relies upon the general proposition *584that an action of ejectment cannot be maintained by a party where the legal title is in somebody else. That general proposition is stated by him too strongly. The legal title may be subdivided into several estates. There may be a legal title which is a fee-simple; there may be a legal title which is an estate in remainder; there may be a legal title which is a lease, the leasehold interest being in the lessee, and the title of .the fee in the lessor. Any of these is sufficient, if the party out of possession, to maintain an action of ejectment. The proposition is still stronger in most of these western states, where the language of the statute is that any party out of possession of real es.tate may bring an action to recover. But, conceding that in the United States courts a party can only recover on a legal title, as contradistinguished from an equitable title, I think that counsel for defendant in this case has not considered the fact that the plaintiff in this case, while he has a legal right of present possession, will have an equitable right to obtain the title from the railroad company when the money is all paid up. He has the legal right to the possession of that property if the vendor can give such a legal right, because the vendor has about $200 of the purchase money, and has agreed that the plaintiff shall go into possession,—take possession of, cultivate, and build, I think, is the language; something to that effect,—which necessarily implies a right of possession.

Now, taking the title of the railroad company, and the right which it has conferred on its vendee to possession, there is in this plaintiff a strict legal right of possession in this property, which does not depend upon any equitable proceedings whatever. If the defendant has a better right to the possession, he can show it; but as the papers stand I am of opinion that the contract between the railroad company (which in this motion is conceded to have a legal title) with the plaintiff in this case, which gives him the right of possession of the property, is a legal contract, and conferred the legal right of possession.

The motion in this case is, therefore, overruled.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Anthony Jefferies, Appellant.

[974 NYS2d 63]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene D. Goldberg, J.), rendered November 18, 2010, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (four counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (seven counts), criminally using drug paraphernalia in the second degree (two counts) and criminal possession of marijuana in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to an aggregate term of 15 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s legal sufficiency claim is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we reject it on the merits. The People’s theory of constructive possession was not based on traditional “hallmarks” of dominion and control such as tenancy, but on the inference that defendant was a member of a criminal enterprise operating out of an apartment, and was thus a joint possessor of all the contraband in that apartment, regardless of whose residence the apartment might have been. This theory was related to, but separate from, the presumption found in Penal Law § 220.25 (2) concerning drugs in open view in a room (see *People v Bianchini,*309 AD2d 652 [1st Dept 2003]). Defendant’s membership in the unlawful operation was the only reasonable explanation for his presence in the apartment, where loaded weapons and significant quantities of drugs were in plain view (see *People v Bundy,*90 NY2d 918, 920 [1997]; *People v Collado,*267 AD2d 122 [1st Dept 1999], *lv denied*94 NY2d 917 [2000]). In addition, defendant flushed drugs down the toilet as the police entered, and his DNA was found on one of the firearms. The jury could have readily rejected defendant’s claim that he was innocently visiting his drug-dealing girlfriend.

The court properly permitted the People to impeach a defense witness with a prior inconsistent statement. Defendant failed to preserve, or affirmatively waived *(see People v Lewis,*5 NY3d 546, 551 [2005]), his claims that the court should have given a limiting instruction during the cross-examination and that the charge given just prior to deliberations was improper, and we *647decline to review these claims in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that the court’s charge, viewed as a whole, sufficiently instructed the jury on the proper use of a prior inconsistent statement, and that any error was harmless *(see People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230 [1975]).

Defendant also affirmatively waived, or failed to preserve, his challenges to portions of a detective’s testimony, and to the absence of a circumstantial evidence charge, and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find no basis for reversal. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Renwick, DeGrasse, Feinman and Gische, JJ.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leo James TAYLOR, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-30142.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 25, 2006.*

Filed Oct. 13, 2006.

Kris A. McLean, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney District of Montana, Missoula, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Timothy A. Bechtold, Esq., Rossbach Hart Bechtold, LLP, Missoula, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.

*95Before: SKOPIL, BOOCHEVER, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Leo James Taylor, Jr. appeals from his conviction for possession of a firearm equipped with a silencer in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1). He claims that because the silencer was homemade and did not travel in interstate commerce, the statute as applied to him exceeded Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause. We review de novo the constitutionality of a statute as applied, *see United States v. Carranza,*289 F.3d 634, 643 (9th Cir.2002), and we affirm.

The Controlled Substances Act may be constitutionally applied to “purely local activities that are part of an economic class of activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce.” *Gonzales v. Raich,*545 U.S. 1, 125 S.Ct. 2195, 2205, 162 L.Ed.2d 1 (2005) (quotations omitted); *see United States v. Stewart,*451 F.3d 1071, 1077-78 (9th Cir.2006) (following *Raich*and applying 18 U.S.C. § 922(o) to handmade machineguns). In *United States v. Staples,*85 F.3d 461, 463 (9th Cir.1996), we held that 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) regulated not simple possession of a firearm but rather, as in this case, possession in relation to drug trafficking, “which substantially affects interstate commerce.” The application of § 924(c)(1) to Taylor’s prosecution for possession of a pistol with a homemade silencer, premised on an underlying drug trafficking offense, did not violate the Commerce Clause.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
EXHIBIT 21



Q LOTUS HOLDINGS, INC.



Subsidiaries of the Registrant



March 31, 2012



|                              |  |               |        |  | Percentage | 
|----------------------------- |  | ------------- | ------ |  | ---------- | 
|                              |  |               |        |  | of Voting  | 
|                              |  | State of      |        |  | Securities | 
|Subsidiary Name               |  | Incorporation |        |  | Owned      | 
|                              |  |               |        |  |            | 
|Q Lotus, Inc.                 |  |               | Nevada |  |            | 
|                              |  |               |        |  |            | 
|Midwest Business Credit, Inc. |  |               | Nevada |  |            |
exv10w1



 






Exhibit 10.1



Globix Corporation Amendment to Master Service Agreement




The changes, deletions and/or additions in this Amendment shall apply to the
Master Service Agreement dated September 25, 2002 as addended by and between
the parties hereto and are referenced by paragraph and/or attachment more
specifically as follows:





	1.	 	The attached Exhibit I shall be for a renewal of Services subject to the
terms set forth therein for a Term of thirteen (13) months commencing
September 1, 2004 with the first month thereof at no charge.
	 
	2.	 	Client shall be entitled to pricing for Goods and Services purchased from
Globix on a most favored nations (“MFN”) basis. For avoidance of doubt,
MFN shall mean pricing equal to that of a similarly situated Globix client
purchasing a similarly sized IDC footprint, similar power consumption,
bandwidth utilization, etc. at or about the time that pricing is
established for such client.
	 
	3.	 	In the event that Globix receives a “going concern opinion” from its
independent auditors or if Globix or its affiliates has knowledge that its
independent auditors will disclaim to express such an opinion about
Globix, Globix shall provide written notice to Client within ten (10)
days. In such event, Client may terminate this Agreement by providing
written notice at least ninety (90) days prior to the effective date of
such termination upon the payment of accrued payment obligations up to the
termination date, but without penalty or early termination fees
whatsoever.
	 
	4.	 	Client shall have the right without early termination liability to
eliminate units of power to its facilities upon thirty (30) days advance
written notice.





Exhibit I





	1.	 	The Exhibit I attached hereto shall be modified on the last page thereof
to remove the provision for automatic renewal. Thus, the Service set
forth therein shall terminate at the end of the Term stated on the first
page thereof, unless terminated earlier in accordance with the Agreement
or extended as mutually agreed between the parties.





In all other respects the Master Service Agreement as addended shall be in full
force and effect.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have executed this Amendment by their
duly authorized representatives effective as of the latest of the two dates
below.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Globix Corporation	 	Digital Impact, Inc.
	139 Centre Street	 	177 Bovet Road
	New York, NY 10013	 	San Mateo, CA 94402
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Date:	 	9-29-04	 	Date:	 	9-30-04
	 	 	
 	 	 	 	
 
	By	 	/s/ Brett B. Jones	 	By	 	/s/ David Oppenheimer
	
 	 	
 
	Brett B. Jones
	 	 	 	Name:	 	David Oppenheimer
	General Manager — Western Region
	 	 	 	Title:	 	CFO
## IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA

July 12, 2024 SC-2024-0356 Ex parte Cory Bourke Rogers PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (In re: Cory Bourke Rogers v. City of Madison) (Madison Circuit Court: CC-22-1276, CC-22-1277, CC-22-1278, CC-22-1279, and CC-22-1280; Criminal Appeals: CR-2023- 0535). CERTIFICATE OF JUDGMENT WHEREAS, the petition for writ of certiorari in the above referenced cause has been duly submitted and considered by the Supreme Court of Alabama and the judgment indicated below was entered in this cause on July 12, 2024: Writ Denied. No Opinion. Cook, J. -- Parker, C.J., and Wise, Sellers, and Stewart, JJ., concur. NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to Rule 41, Ala. R. App. P., IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this Court's judgment in this cause is certified on this date. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, unless otherwise ordered by this Court or agreed upon by the parties, the costs of this cause are hereby taxed as provided by Rule 35, Ala. R. App. P.

I, Megan B. Rhodebeck, certify that this is the record of the judgment of the Court, witness my hand and seal.

Clerk, Supreme Court of Alabama
EXHIBIT 10.1.11



                                    ORMAT(R)  [ORMAT LOGO OMITTED]
                             ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES INC
                 980 GREG STREET, SPARKS, NEVADA 89431-6039, USA



                                  CAPITAL NOTE

1.   The undersigned, Ormat Technologies INC, a company organized and existing
     under the laws of Delaware, USA, acknowledges that it is to receive from
     Ormat Industries Ltd., a company organized and existing under the laws of
     Israel, located at Sheydlowski Road, Yavne, Israel, a non-interest bearing
     loan in the amount of NIS 240,000,000 [Two Hundred and Forty Million] but
     in any event, an amount not to exceed the amount in NIS equal to $
     50,664,977 US on the date of the transfer of such loan) (the "Loan").

2.   For Value Received and upon demand at any time after November 30th, 2005,
     Ormat Technologies INC hereby promises to repay the Loan to Ormat
     Industries Ltd. without any interest.

3.   Ormat Industries Ltd. acknowledges that this non-interest bearing Loan is
     subordinated to all other liabilities of Ormat Technologies Inc.

4.   Ormat Industries Ltd. will not accelerate the repayment of this capital
     note.

5.   In any and all events, the Loan shall be repaid not later than December
     30th, 2006.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Capital Note has been duly signed on behalf of Ormat
Technologies INC. this 22nd day of December, 2003 value of January 1st, 2003.


Ormat Technologies Inc.

By  /s/ Connie Stechman
   ----------------------------

Connie Stechman
-------------------------------
Name

Vice President
-------------------------------
Title

ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
980 Greg Street  o  Sparks, NV 89431-6039  o  Telephone:(775) 356-9029
 o  Facsimile:(775)356-9039
#### In the Matter of Fabricio Diaz, Appellant, v Priscilla Ledbetter, as Director of Temporary Release Programs, Respondent.

[974 NYS2d 808]

— Garry, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Melkonian, J.), entered October 18, 2012 in Albany County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, dismissed the petition.

In September 2011, petitioner applied to participate in a *1044temporary prison work release program and his application was denied based upon the serious nature of his crime, as well as his prior convictions and sanctions imposed while incarcerated. Petitioner filed a timely administrative appeal but, prior to receiving a response to that appeal, he commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to challenge the denial. Following the service of respondent’s answer, Supreme Court dismissed the proceeding for petitioner’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies, after which petitioner sought to appeal to this Court. However, this Court has been advised that, as of September 28, 2013, petitioner has been released on parole. Because petitioner is no longer incarcerated and, accordingly, is no longer affected by the determination that denied his temporary work release application, this appeal must be dismissed as moot *(see Matter of Gallo v New York State Temporary Release Program,*100 AD3d 1165, 1166 [2012]; *Matter of Shell v New York State Dept. of Corrections Temporary Release Program,*26 AD3d 537, 537 [2006]).

Rose, J.P, Lahtinen and Stein, JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, without costs.
Certificate
of Amendment to Articles of Incorporation






of






Max
Nutrition, Inc.






(Pursuant to NRS
78.385 and 78.390 - After Issuance of Stock)






Pursuant to the provisions of the
Nevada Revised Statutes, Max Nutrition, Inc., a Nevada corporation, adopts the
following amendment to its Articles of Incorporation.






1.
            The
      undersigned hereby certify that on the 21st
      day of February 2008, acting by written consent without a meeting, in
      accordance with the provisions of section 78.315 of the Nevada Revised
      Statutes and Article III of the Bylaws of this corporation the Board of
      Directors approved, consented to, affirmed, and adopted the following
      resolution:








RESOLVED, that the Secretary of the
corporation is hereby ordered and directed to obtain at least a majority of the
voting power of the outstanding Common Stock and Common Stock Equivalents of the
corporation for the following purpose:






To amend Article I of the corporation’s
Articles of Incorporation to provide that the name of the corporation shall be
changed toChina Dasheng
Biotechnology Company.”






2.
            Pursuant to the provisions of the Nevada Revised Statutes, a majority of
      Max Nutrition,  Inc.’s shares entitled to vote, consented in writing
      to the adoption of an amendment to Article I of the Articles of
      Incorporation to read in its entirety as
  follows:













Article I
The name of the corporation is: China Dasheng Biotechnology
Company.












In witness whereof, the undersigned being the President, CEO and sole officer of
Max Nutrition, Inc., a Nevada corporation, hereunto affixes his signature this
20thday of February
2008.






/s/ Qi
Jijun






____________________________________






Qi Jijun,
President and CEO