alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Filed by Automated Filing Services Inc. (604) 609-0244 - Canyon Copper Corp. - Exhibit 10.3






CONVERTIBLE PROMISSORY NOTE

	EXECUTED BY: 	Canyon Copper Corp. (the "Borrower") 
	 	 
	IN FAVOUR OF: 	Aton Ventures Fund Ltd. (the "Lender") 
	 	 
	PRINCIPAL AMOUNT: 	$250,000 (U.S.) 
	 	 
	DATE OF EXECUTION: 	September 12, 2006 
	 	 
	PLACE OF EXECUTION: 	Vancouver, BC, Canada 


FOR VALUE RECEIVED the Borrower hereby promises to pay
to or to the order of the Lender on January 12, 2009, the principal sum of
$250,000 (U.S.), together with interest thereon at the rate of 8% per annum,
both before and after maturity from the date hereof.

The Lender may at its option, at any time prior to January 12,
2009, convert all or any portion of the principal sum into that number of
fully-paid and non-assessable shares of common stock of the Borrower (the
“Conversion Shares”) as shall be equal to the principal sum at a conversion rate
which shall be the lesser of $0.30 U.S. per share or the closing price of the
Borrower’s shares on the Over-the-Counter Bulletin Board on the business day
preceding the date that the Borrower provides notice of conversion hereunder.
Upon exercise of the Lender’s conversion rights hereunder, the Lender shall
receive for no additional consideration one half of a share purchase warrant
(each a “Warrant”) for each Conversion Share issued by the Borrower to the
Lender. Each whole Warrant shall entitle the Lender to purchase one additional
share of the Borrower’s common stock for a period of one year from the date of
issuance, at a price of $0.40 per share.

The Borrower waives presentment, demand, notice, protest and
notice of dishonour and all other demands and notices in connection with the
delivery, acceptance, performance, default or enforcement of this Promissory
Note.

The Borrower agrees this Promissory Note may be negotiated,
assigned, discounted, or pledged by the Lender and in every case payment will be
made to the holder of this Promissory Note instead of the Lender upon notice
being given by the holder to the undersigned, and no holder of this Promissory
Note will be affected by the state of accounts between the undersigned and the
Lender or by any equities existing between the undersigned and the Lender and
will be deemed to be a holder in due course and for the value of the Promissory
Note held by him.

DATED at Vancouver, BC this 30th day of November, 2007.

CANYON COPPER CORP. 
by its authorized signatory:

/s/ Kurt Bordian

  ________________________________

  Kurt Bordian, Chief Financial Officer
#### Wanda SCOTT, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Abbeville County; City of Abbeville; Abbeville County Sheriff's Department; Abbeville County Jail; Tommy Hite, Hite *232Law Firm; Marion Johnson, Deputy Sheriff; Don Morris, Deputy Sheriff; Charles Goodwin, Sheriff; David Beasley, former Governor of South Carolina; Kelly Lowe, Prosecutor; Andrew Hodges, Prosecutor; Frank Addey, Family Court Prosecutor; John Schrier, Police Officer; Robin Rucker, Chief of Police; Eve Wilson, Abbeville County DSS; Abbeville City Police Department; Anna Padgent, Gal Program; State of Alabama, Governor’s Office; Rucker, Family Court Judge; Greenwood Solicitor, Office Prosecutors; County of Abbeville Family Court; South Carolina Department of Judicial Administration; Eric McCoy, of Governor’s Extradition Office; John Doe, of Governor’s Extradition Office; CSX Railroad; Isolyser Co., of Norcross Georgia; Karen Creech, Attorney; Covington Patrick Hagin Stein & Lewis; Timothy Woolston, Prosecutor, Defendants—Appellees, and GWD Prosecutors; Tommy Ferguson, Abbeville County Magistrate; Jailer Trish; Wyatt Saunders, Family Court Judge; Tim Thomas; Townes Jones, Solicitor; Ladona Johnson; County of Calhoun; David Forrester, Deputy, Defendants.

No. 08-2357.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 21, 2009.

Decided: May 26, 2009.

Wanda Scott, Appellant pro se.

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Wanda Scott appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Scott v. South Carolina,*No. 8:08-cv-00932-GRA, 2008 WL 4862517 (D.S.C. Nov. 7, 2008). We deny Scott’s motions to order additional case files and to consolidate. 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.

*AFFIRMED.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AS OF MARCH 31,  1999 AND THE  STATEMENT  OF INCOME  FOR THE THREE  MONTHS
ENDED MARCH 31, 1999 AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY  BY  REFERENCE  TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 820806
<NAME> PARTICIPATING INCOME PROPERTIES II, L.P.
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                      84,117,472
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  124,036
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              84,241,508
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  82,036,029
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                84,241,508
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            36,891,252
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  633,362
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             35,995,394
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         35,995,394
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                35,995,394
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   434.35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 99.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                                   PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the annual report of HFB Financial Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the six-month transition period ended December 31,
2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Stanley Alexander, Jr., President and Chief Executive Officer
of the Company, certify, to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

         (1)      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.

         A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

         March 25, 2003                  /s/ Stanley Alexander, Jr.
                                         -------------------------------------
                                         Stanley Alexander, Jr.
                                         Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2539 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2539

          To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 1,3,6-
 Naphthalenetrisulfonic acid, 7-[[2-[(aminocarbonyl)amino]-4-[[4-[4-[2-
          [[4-[[3-[(aminocarbonyl)amino]-4-[(3,6,8-trisulfo-2-
        naphthalenyl)azo]phenyl]amino]-6-chloro-1,3,5-triazin-2-
         yl]amino]ethyl]-1-piperazinyl]-chloro-1,3,5-triazin-2-
        yl]amino]phenyl]azo]-, lithium potassium sodium salt)-.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 30, 2009

   Mr. Burr introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
          To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 1,3,6-
 Naphthalenetrisulfonic acid, 7-[[2-[(aminocarbonyl)amino]-4-[[4-[4-[2-
          [[4-[[3-[(aminocarbonyl)amino]-4-[(3,6,8-trisulfo-2-
        naphthalenyl)azo]phenyl]amino]-6-chloro-1,3,5-triazin-2-
         yl]amino]ethyl]-1-piperazinyl]-chloro-1,3,5-triazin-2-
        yl]amino]phenyl]azo]-, lithium potassium sodium salt)-.

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

SECTION 1. 1,3,6-NAPHTHALENETRISULFONIC ACID, 7-[[2-
              [(AMINOCARBONYL)AMINO]-4-[[4-[4-[2-[[4-[[3-
              [(AMINOCARBONYL)AMINO]-4-[(3,6,8-TRISULFO-2-
              NAPHTHALENYL)AZO]PHENYL]AMINO]-6-CHLORO-1,3,5-TRIAZIN-2-
              YL]AMINO]ETHYL]-1-PIPERAZINYL]-CHLORO-1,3,5-TRIAZIN-2-
              YL]AMINO]PHENYL]AZO]-, LITHIUM POTASSIUM SODIUM SALT)-.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.25.01 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to 1,3,6-Naphthalenetrisulfonic 
acid, 7-[[2-[(aminocarbonyl)amino]-4-[[4-[4-[2-[[4-[[3-
[(aminocarbonyl)amino]-4-[(3,6,8-trisulfo-2-
naphthalenyl)azo]phenyl]amino]-6-chloro-1,3,5-triazin-2-
yl]amino]ethyl]-1-piperazinyl]-chloro-1,3,5-triazin-2-
yl]amino]phenyl]azo]-, lithium potassium sodium salt)-) is amended by 
striking ``12/31/2009'' and inserting ``12/31/2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Webb County Appraisal

District and United Independent School



# Fourth Court of **Appeals**

**San Antonio, Texas**

October 9, 2014

N o. 04

- 14

- 00343

- CV

EXLP LEASING LLC and EES Leasing LLC, Appellant s

v.

WEBB COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT and United Independent School District, Appellees

From the 406th Judicial District Court, Webb County , Texas

Trial Court No. 2013

- CV

- 8000073

- D4 Honorable Oscar J Hale, Jr., Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Appellee Webb County Appraisal District has filed a motion for a fifteen

- day ext ension of time to file its brief. The brief was originally due September 10, 2014, and the court previously granted an extension of time until October 10 to file the brief.

We grant the motion and order the brief due October 27, 2014 . Appellee is advise d that no further extensions of time will be granted absent a motion that (1) demonstrates extraordinary circumstances justifying further delay, (2) advises the court of the efforts counsel has expended in preparing the brief, and (3) provides the court re asonable assurance that the brief will be completed and filed by the requested extended deadline.

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. C hapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 9th day of October, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Ho ttle

Clerk of Court
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 31.1

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, Clyde B. Anderson, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Books-A-Million, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the periods presented in this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report.

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

      a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
      disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,
      to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including
      its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
      entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
      prepared;

      b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
      procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
      effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of
      the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

      c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
      control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's
      most recent fiscal year that has materially affected, or is reasonably
      likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over
      financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):

      a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

      b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.

Date: April 28, 2005

                                                 /s/ Clyde B. Anderson
                                                 -----------------------------
                                                 Clyde B. Anderson
                                                 Executive Chairman of the Board
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
    <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width" />
    <meta name="robots" content="noindex">
    <title>Research Resources - NIDDK</title>
    
<meta name="VIcurrentDateTime" content="638490749691178220" />
<meta name="VirtualFolder" content="/" />
<script type="text/javascript" src="/layouts/system/VisitorIdentification.js"></script>

</head>
<body>
    <div></div>
</body>
</html>
1Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under

the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 98-50187

Summary Calendar

RICHARD A. GATHERS,

 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

SHEILA E. WINDNALL, Secretary Air Force, 

Department of the U.S. Air Force,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Western District of Texas

(SA-96-CV-432)

December 1, 1998

Before DAVIS, DUHÉ and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:1

Appellant Gathers appeals the grant of summary judgment

dismissing his employment discrimination suit against his former

employer, the U. S. Air Force. He claimed racial discrimination

and retaliation were the cause of his adverse employment actions.

The Motion For Summary Judgment was referred to the magistrate

judge who submitted a lengthy and detailed recommendation to the
2

district court, which the court, after de novo review of the

summary judgment record, adopted.

On appeal, Gathers complains that the district court employed

the incorrect standard of review and that it failed to find that

another employee was treated differently than Appellant which

constituted discrimination. We have carefully reviewed the record,

the magistrate judge’s memorandum and the district court’s opinion

and find no error.

The fact that the Air Force may have applied an incorrect

regulation in requiring a resignation in order to grant leave

without pay does not establish discrimination because the evidence

is uncontradicted that this regulation was applied to everyone who

sought leave without pay.

Nor is there any evidence that the fact that Appellant had

filed a prior EEOC complaint played any part whatever in the

employment decisions regarding him.

Finally, the Air Force clearly established that the employee

Mello, to whom Appellant compares himself, was in fact in a very

different situation. That he was treated differently does not even

infer discriminatory motive, much less create a genuine issue of

material fact.

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-Q
FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           5,176
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,256
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,696
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                17,677
<PP&E>                                          23,946
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,228
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 115,562
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,932
<BONDS>                                         50,199
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           102
<OTHER-SE>                                      50,329
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   115,562
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                33,035
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   38,202
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,239
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (10,406)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (10,406)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (10,406)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.02)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 21

                           BERKELEY TECHNOLOGY LIMITED
                     Subsidiary Listing as of March 23, 2007


Berkeley Technology Limited (Jersey, Channel Islands corporation)

         Berkeley International Capital Limited (Guernsey, Channel
                                                      Islands corporation)

         Berkeley International Limited (Jersey, Channel Islands corporation)

         Frederick Morgan & Co. Limited (Jersey, Channel Islands corporation)

         London Pacific Advisers Limited (United Kingdom corporation)

         London Pacific Assurance Limited (Jersey, Channel Islands corporation)

                  LPAL Investments Limited (Guernsey, Channel
                                                          Islands corporation)

         London Pacific Trust Company Limited (Jersey, Channel
                                                          Islands corporation)

                  Berkeley (USA) Holdings Limited (California corporation)

                           Berkeley Institutional Investment, Inc. (California
                                                                    corporation)

                           Berkeley International Capital Corporation
                                                        (California corporation)

                  London Pacific Secretaries Limited (Jersey, Channel
                                                            Islands corporation)


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


Notes:

(1)   Each indentation reflects another tier of ownership.

(2)   All subsidiaries are 100% owned and are listed above, except that several
      subsidiaries  that in the aggregate are insignificant have been omitted.