alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
DOCUMENT DISCLAIMER COVER PAGE





LICENSE AGREEMENT







This License Agreement (this "Agreement") is made effective as of July 19, 2004  between Darryl Kenneth Cozac, of 702, 505-4th Street SW Calgary, Alberta, and Sprout Development Inc., of 702, 505-4th Street SW Calgary, Alberta.

In the Agreement, the party who is granting the right to use the licensed property (the “Software” will be referred to as "Mr. Cozac", and the party who is receiving the right to use the licensed property will be referred to as “Sprout Development Inc.".




The parties agree as follows:  




1.  GRANT OF LICENSE.   Mr. Cozac owns the divorced-parent, child-time-management software concept (the “Concept”). In accordance with this Agreement, Mr. Cozac grants Sprout Development Inc. an exclusive perpetual license to use the Concept to develop and license the Software.  Mr. Cozac retains title and ownership of the Concept and the Software.  




2.  PAYMENT   Sprout Development Inc. will issue to Mr. Cozac 13,990,000 shares of Sprout Development Inc. in return for the exclusive license. There are no royalties or any fees whatsoever payable by Sprout Development Inc. to Mr. Cozac or any other party.




3.  WARRANTIES.  There are no warranties.




4.  TRANSFER OF RIGHTS.  This Agreement shall be binding on any successors of the parties.  Either party shall have the right to assign its interests in this Agreement to any other party.  




5.  TERMINATION.  This Agreement may be terminated by mutual agreement of parties.

  

6.  ENTIRE AGREEMENT.  This Agreement contains the entire agreement of the parties and there are no other promises or conditions in any other agreement whether oral or written.  This Agreement supersedes any prior written or oral agreements between the parties.




10.  AMENDMENT.  This Agreement may be modified or amended, if the amendment is made in writing and is signed by both parties.




11.  SEVERABILITY.  If any provision of this Agreement shall be held to be invalid or unenforceable for any reason, the remaining provisions shall continue to be valid and enforceable.  If a court finds that any provision of this Agreement is invalid or unenforceable, but that by limiting such provision it would become valid or enforceable, then such provision shall be deemed to be written, construed, and enforced as so limited.




12.  WAIVER OF CONTRACTUAL RIGHT.  The failure of either party to enforce any provision of this Agreement shall not be construed as a waiver or limitation of that party's right to subsequently enforce and compel strict compliance with every provision of this Agreement.




13.  APPLICABLE LAW.  This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the Province of Alberta.







Licensor:

Mr. Cozac







By:

/s/ Darryl Cozac










Licensee:

Sprout Development Inc.







By:

/s/ Darryl Cozac
#### In the Matter of Michael Hixenbaugh, Respondent, v Linda Hixenbaugh, Also Known as Linda Penagos, Appellant.

[974 NYS2d 287]

In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Genchi, J.), dated December 10, 2012, as granted the father’s petition to modify an order of custody dated September 21, 2011, so as to award him residential and legal custody of the parties’ children.

*637Ordered that the order dated December 10, 2012, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

“In order to modify an existing custody or visitation arrangement, there must be a showing that there has been a change in circumstances such that modification is required to protect the best interests of the child” *(Matter of Davis v Pignataro*97 AD3d 677, 677 [2012] [internal quotation marks omitted]; *see Matter of Peralta v Irrizary,*76 AD3d 561, 562 [2010]; *Matter of Arduino v Ayuso,*70 AD3d 682, 682 [2010]). “The best interests of the child are determined by a review of the totality of the circumstances” *(Matter of Davis v Pignataro,*97 AD3d at 677 [internal quotation marks omitted]; *see Matter of Jackson v Coleman,*94 AD3d 762, 763 [2012]; *Matter of Skeete v Hamilton,*78 AD3d 1187, 1188 [2010]). “Since any custody determination depends to a very great extent upon the hearing court’s assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and of the character, temperament, and sincerity of the parties, its findings are generally accorded great respect and will not be disturbed unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record” *(Matter of Davis v Pignataro,*97 AD3d at 677-678 [internal quotation marks omitted]; *Matter of Chabotte v Faella,*77 AD3d 749, 749-750 [2010]).

Here, the Family Court properly considered the totality of the circumstances, and its determination awarding the father legal and residential custody of the parties’ two children was supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record. Thus, the court’s determination will not be disturbed *(see Matter of Davis v Pignataro,*97 AD3d at 678; *Matter of Solovay v Solovay,*94 AD3d 898 [2012]; *Matter of Jackson v Coleman,*94 AD3d at 763).

Moreover, there is no merit to the mother’s contention that the Family Court was unfairly biased against her. “The inquiry on appeal is limited to whether the judge’s bias, if any, unjustly affected the result to the detriment of the complaining party” *(Matter of Davis v Pignataro,*97 AD3d at 678 [internal quotation marks omitted]; *see Schwartzberg v Kingsbridge Hgts. Care Ctr., Inc.,*28 AD3d 465, 466 [2006]; *State Div. of Human Rights v Merchants Mut. Ins. Co.,*59 AD2d 1054, 1056 [1977]). Here, the record contains no evidence of such bias *(see Matter of Davis v Pignataro,*97 AD3d at 678).

The mother’s remaining contentions are without merit. Angiolillo, J.E, Hall, Austin and Miller, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1



                         Consent of Independent Auditors


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8, No. 33-54604) pertaining to the 1990 Incentive Stock Option,
Nonqualified Stock Option and Restricted Stock Option Purchase Plan, (Form S-8,
No. 33-70518) pertaining to the 1993 Nonqualified Stock Option Plan and Key
Employee Warrants, (Form S-8, No. 33-71876) pertaining to the 1993 Key Employee
Warrants, (Form S-8, No. 33-92270) pertaining to the 1994 Incentive Stock
Option, Nonqualified Stock Option and Restricted Stock Purchase Plan, (Form S-8,
No. 333-06419) pertaining to the 1996 Nonqualified Stock Option Plan, (Form S-8,
No. 333-06415) pertaining to Key Employee Restricted Stock Purchase Plan, (Form
S-8, No. 333-28259) pertaining to the Key Employee Restricted Stock Purchase
Plan, (Form S-8, No 333-46393) pertaining to Key Employee Options and FocusSoft
Stock Option Plan, (Form S-8, No. 333-41321), pertaining to the 1997
Nonqualified Stock Option Plan and Platinum Software Corporation Clientele
Incentive Plan, (Form S-3, No. 333-38105) pertaining to the registration of
450,935 shares, (Form S-3, 333-46395) pertaining to the registration of
2,474,794 shares, (Form S-4, No. 333-67577) pertaining to the registration of
16,950,379 shares, (Form S-8, No. 333-67841) pertaining to the 1998 Nonqualified
Stock Option Plan, (Form S-8, No. 333-70855) pertaining to DataWorks 1995 Equity
Incentive Plan, DataWorks 1995 Non-Employee Directors Stock Option Plan,
Interactive 1997 Nonstatutory Stock Option Plan, Interactive 1995 Stock Option
Plan, and Nonstatutory Stock Option Agreements, Nonqualified Stock Option
Agreement of our reports dated February 2, 1999, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements and schedule of Platinum Software Corporation,
included in the Transition Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31,
1998.


                                     Ernst & Young LLP


Orange County, California
March 24, 1999
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration 

          - [TA-W-65,670] 

In accordance with Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on March 25, 2009 in response to a worker petition filed on behalf of workers of Dalure Fashions, Inc., Gatesville, North Carolina. 

The petitioners have requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated. 

Signed in Washington, DC, this 22nd day of April 2009. 

Richard Church, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E9-11863 Filed 5-20-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
(885 P.2d 400)

No. 71,126

#### In the Matter of the Marriage of Michael A. Bock, *Appellant,*and Jane Bock, *Appellee.*

Opinion filed December 2, 1994.

*Gerald N.*Jeserich, of Boal and Jeserich, of Kansas City, for the appellant.

*Janet S. Ensign,*of Mission, for the appellee.

Before Briscoe, C.J., Gernon, J., and Robert H. Miller, Chief Justice Retired, assigned.

Briscoe, C.J.:

Michael Bock appeals a hearing officer s order granting Jane Bock an increase in child support. He contends the hearing officer erred in awarding an increase in child support in the absence of a showing of financial need by Jane, the custodial parent. This court is without jurisdiction to consider an appeal from an order entered by a hearing officer which was not first reviewed by the district court. We dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The Bocks were divorced in 1992 and Jane was awarded custody of the parties’ three minor children. In 1993, Jane sought an increase in child support and a hearing officer granted the increase. Michael moved the district court to set aside the order, citing newly discovered evidence. The district court granted the motion and remanded the matter to the hearing officer for reconsideration in light of “the facts contained in certain correspondence sent from the Respondent to the Petitioner.” The hearing officer reinstated the original increase in support, and the *219district court approved this order. Following the hearing officers reinstatement of its order increasing child support, Michael did not seek judicial review of the hearing officer’s order under Supreme Court Rule 172(g) (1993 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 149), but appealed directly to this court.

Rule 172 provides that district judges, district magistrate judges, and court trustees may serve as hearing officers in domestic relations matters within the scope of Rule 172. Subsection (b)(5) provides that “orders proposed by court trustees shall be approved by a judge before the order is issued,” while subsection (g) provides that decisions of court trustees and magistrate judges “shall be subject to review by an associate district judge or district judge on the motion of any party filed within 10 days after the order was entered.” K.S.A. 1993 Supp. 60-2101(a) provides that this court “shall have jurisdiction to hear appeals from district courts, except in those cases renewable by law in the district court.”

In this case, the order was proposed by a hearing officer who is not a judge. The proposed order was approved by a judge, but was not reviewed by the district court pursuant to Rule 172(g). In the absence of a review of the hearing officer’s order by the district court, this court is without jurisdiction to consider this appeal from the hearing officer’s order. K.S.A. 1993 Supp. 60-2101(a).

Appeal dismissed.
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Elder, Clements and Senior Judge Annunziata 

MICHEAL R. LANE, SR. 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* 

v. Record No. 1809-07-2 PER CURIAM 

 JANUARY 15, 2008 

VIRGINIA EMPLOYMENT COMMISSION AND 

 VAN GO, INC. OF RICHMOND CORPORATION 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND 

Melvin R. Hughes, Jr., Judge 

 (Martin Wegbreit; Central Virginia Legal Aid Society, on briefs), for 

appellant. 

 (Robert F. McDonnell, Attorney General; Elizabeth B. Peay, 

Assistant Attorney General; Thomas W. Nesbitt, Assistant Attorney 

General, on brief), for appellee Virginia Employment Commission. 

 No brief for appellee Van Go, Inc. of Richmond Corporation. 

 Micheal R. Lane, Sr. appeals a decision of the circuit court denying his claim for 

unemployment benefits. The circuit court affirmed the ruling of the Virginia Employment 

Commission finding that Lane was terminated from his employment with Van Go, Inc. of 

Richmond Corporation due to work-related misconduct under Code § 60.2-618(2). We have 

reviewed the record and the circuit court’s June 1, 2007 opinion letter and find that this appeal is 

without merit. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the circuit court in its June 1, 

2007 opinion letter and its July 10, 2007 final order. See Lane v. Virginia Employment 

Comm’n, Case No. 760CL06006617-00-01 (June 1, 2007 and July 10, 2007). We dispense with 

 *

 Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

oral argument and summarily affirm because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

See Code 

§ 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27. 

Affirmed.
#### Jeffrey Chiara, Appellant, v Town of New Castle et al., Respondents.

Submitted October 26, 2009;

decided December 15, 2009

Reported below, 61 AD3d 915.

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
#### In re: Kenrick G. EASTMOND, Petitioner.

No. 09-1057.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 12, 2009.

Decided: May 27, 2009.

Kenrick G. Eastmond, Petitioner Pro Se.

*244Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Kenrick G. Eastmond petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his writ of coram nobis and 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2008) motion to vacate. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. Our review of the record reveals that the district court entered final judgment dismissing East-mond’s writ and motion on December 12, 2008. Accordingly, because the district court has decided Eastmond’s case, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 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.

*PETITION DENIED.*
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 13 (Thursday, January 22, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4050-4051]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-1190]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[CO-922-09-1310-FI; COC69412]


Notice of Proposed Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and Gas Lease

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and Gas 
Lease.

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

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of 30 U.S.C. 188(d) and (e), and 43 CFR 
3108.2-3(a) and (b)(1), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) received a 
petition for reinstatement of oil and gas lease COC69412 from the 
following companies: (1) Whiting Oil & Gas Corp.,

[[Page 4051]]

(2) Williams Prod Ryan Gulch, LLC, for lands in Rio Blanco County, 
Colorado. The petition was filed on time and was accompanied by all the 
rentals due since the date the lease terminated under the law.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bureau of Land Management, Milada 
Krasilinec, Land Law Examiner, Branch of Fluid Minerals Adjudication, 
at 303-239-3767.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The lessee has agreed to the amended lease 
terms for rentals and royalties at rates of $10.00 per acre or fraction 
thereof, per year and 16\2/3\ percent, respectively. The lessee has 
paid the required $500 administrative fee and $163 to reimburse the 
Department for the cost of this Federal Register notice. The lessees 
have met all the requirements for reinstatement of the lease as set out 
in Section 31(d) and (e) of the Mineral Lands Leasing Act of 1920 (30 
U.S.C. 188), and the Bureau of Land Management is proposing to 
reinstate lease COC69412 effective August 1, 2008, under the original 
terms and conditions of the lease and the increased rental and royalty 
rates cited above.

    Dated: January 14, 2009.
Milada Krasilinec,
Land Law Examiner.
[FR Doc. E9-1190 Filed 1-21-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-JB-P
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.1

                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

   We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
333-46346 of Sterling Bancshares, Inc. on Form S-4 and in Registration
Statements Nos. 33-75444, 33-75442, 333-16719 and 333-57171 of Sterling
Bancshares, Inc. on Forms S-8 and in Registration Statement No. 333-55724 of
Sterling Bancshares, Inc. on Form S-3 of our report dated March 8, 2002,
appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Sterling Bancshares, Inc. for
the year ended December 31, 2001.

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Houston, Texas
March 8, 2002

                                      71
EXHIBIT 32.1



Certification Pursuant to

Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), I, Wm. Stacy Locke, President and Chief Executive Officer of Pioneer Drilling Company, a Texas corporation (the Company), hereby
certify, to my knowledge, that:



(1) the Companys
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2005 (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.



|                        |  |  |  |                                      
|----------------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------------------
|                        |  | 
|Dated: November 3, 2005 |  |  |  | /s/    WM. STACY
LOCKE               
|                        |  |  |  | Wm. Stacy Locke                      
|                        |  |  |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
```
**INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT**

We consent to the  incorporation  by reference in  Registration  Statements  No.
333-32308 and 333-85483 of Medix  Resources,  Inc. on Forms S-3 and Registration
Statements  No.  333-31684,  333-57558  and 333-73578 on Forms S-8 of our report
dated March 19,  2002,  appearing  in this  annual  report on Form 10-K of Medix
Resources, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2001.

                                          /s/Ehrhardt Keefe Steiner & Hottman PC
                                             Ehrhardt Keefe Steiner & Hottman PC

March 29, 2002
Denver, Colorado
```
<PAGE>

                                                                     Exhibit 3.7

                           CERTIFICATE OF ELIMINATION

                                       OF

                            SERIES B PREFERRED STOCK

                                       OF

                       SPATIALIZER AUDIO LABORATIES, INC.

            Spatializer Audio Laboraties, Inc., a corporation organized and
existing under the Delaware General Corporation Law (the "Corporation") pursuant
to Section 151(g) of the Delaware General Corporation Law, does hereby certify
that the following resolutions regarding the Corporation's Series B Preferred
Stock were duly adopted by the Corporation's Board of Directors:

                  RESOLVED, that no shares of the Corporation's Series B
            Preferred Stock are outstanding and that no shares of the Series B
            Preferred Stock will be issued subject to the certificate of
            designations previously filed with respect to the Series B Preferred
            Stock; and

                  FURTHER RESOLVED, that the officers of the Corporation are
            directed to file with the Secretary of State of the State of
            Delaware a certificate pursuant to Section 151(g) of the Delaware
            General Corporation Law setting forth these resolutions in order to
            eliminate from the Corporation's certificate of incorporation all
            matters set forth in the certificate of designations with respect to
            the Series B Preferred Stock.

            IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused this Certificate of
Elimination to be signed by its duly authorized officer this 23rd day December,
2002.

                                             SPATIALIZER AUDIO LABORATIES, INC.


                                             By: /s/ MARGARET G. GRAF
                                                --------------------------------
                                                Margaret G. Graf
                                                Assistant Secretary
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-14-00355-CR

Rhonda Lorene Ladon

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From the Criminal District Court No. 3

of Tarrant County (1374235D)

December 4, 2014

Per Curiam

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

the appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

PER CURIAM
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6372

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JAMES ISSAC COLE, JR., a/k/a Brother Cole,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District 

Judge. (0:07-cr-00316-JFA-1)

Submitted: May 23, 2013 Decided: May 29, 2013

Before MOTZ and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Issac Cole, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. John David Rowell, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

James Issac Cole, Jr., appeals the district court’s 

order denying his motion to reconsider the denial of his motion 

for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). 

As we have recognized, however, a district court has no 

authority to grant a motion to reconsider its previous order 

denying a 3582(c) motion. United States v. Goodwyn, 596 F.3d 

233, 235-36 (4th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, we affirm the 

judgment of the district court. 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 

the decisional process.

AFFIRMED