alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### CHERO v. COMPANIA MARITIMA HARI LTDA. PANAMA, S. A., et al.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

Dec. 14, 1953.

Silas Blake Axtell, New York City, for plaintiff.

Kirlin, Campbell & Keating, New York City, for defendants.

SUGARMAN, District Judge.

Defendants, Compañía Marítima Hari Ltda. Panama, S. A., and Simpson, *111Spence and Young, agents, move for an order vacating plaintiff’s notices to take their depositions dated September 4, 1953, the pertinent parts of which read as follows:

> “* * * the plaintiff, by his attorney will take the deposition upon oral examination of the defendant (Compañía Marítima Hari Ltda. Panama, S. A.) (Simpson, Spence and Young, Agents) through an officer, agent or director, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure * *

Defendants contend that the notices are defective in

> “(a) that they fail to name or identify properly the person or persons sought to be examined who have knowledge of the facts;

> “(b) that the said notices have been served in bad faith in that the officers and managing agents of the defendants were not on the vessel at the time of the alleged occurrence to the plaintiff and do not have any knowledge of the facts and circumstances surrounding plaintiff’s alleged accident so that the notices are unreasonable and seek to annoy, embarrass and oppress the defendants.”

The affidavit in opposition to this motion to quash the notices states that

> “[L]ast month defendants made a motion to dismiss. When said motion came up for argument the judge sitting in the motion part put said case over * * * so that plaintiff could submit more proof as to the methods and operations of the defendants in regard to their doing business in the State of New York. It is plaintiff’s intention to examine defendants on these grounds *

Prior to the 1946 amendment of F.R. Civ.P. 26(a), 28 U.S.C.A., an examination for that purpose by plaintiff before answer to meet defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, venue, etc., under F.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) to (5) was, by the greater weight of authority, held proper. 4 Moore’s Fed.Prac., 2d Ed., par. 26.09, p. 1046; 9 Fed.Rules Serv.Comm. 26a.162. The amendment of 1946 in no way affects the desirability, under these circumstances, of permitting such an examination.

While the instant notices appear too vague to constitute compliance with F.R. Civ.P. 30(a), 4 Moore’s Fed.Prac., 2d Ed., para. 30.03, [6] p. 2019, enough is disclosed by the motion papers to enable the court to grant plaintiff the limited relief to which he thereby appears to be entitled.

Motion to vacate the plaintiff’s notices to take defendants’ depositions is denied but the examinations thereunder will be of those employees of defendants who are advised as to the extent, if any, that defendants do business in New York and will be limited solely to that question.

Settle order.
AUG 2 8 200? 

Edward D. "Tito" Smith, Chairman 

Chemehuevi Indian Tribe 

P.O. Box 1976 

Havasu Lake, CA 92362 

Dear Chairman Smith: 

This letter responds to your request for the National Indian Gaming Commission's (NIGC) 

review and approval of the amendment of the Chemehuevi Indian Tribe's (Tribe) gaming 

ordinance, submitted on July 28, 2003. Ordinance No. 03-06-28-01, adopted by the Tribe 

on June 28, 2003, amends its Gaming Ordinance to increase the number of Gaming 

Commissioners to five (5). The original gaming ordinance was approved by the Chairman 

of the NIGC on January 2 1, 1994. This letter constitutes approval of the amendment 

adopted by Ordinance No. 03-06-28-01 under the Indian Gamingmry Act. 

Thank you for submitting the amendm 

Chemehuevi Indian Tribe for review and approva 

further assistance, please contact Ms. Frances 

Philip N. Hogen 

Chairman 

NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS 1441 L St NW. Su~te 9100, Wash~ngton, DC 20005 Tel 202 632 7003 Fax 202 632 7066 www.~~cc.cov 

-- - -. -, .---. 
ORDINANCE NO. 03-06-28-01 i. 

AN ORDINANCE OF THE TRIBAL COUNCIL OF THE CHEMEHUEVI 'LC, 

INDIAN TRIBE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2000-01 

The Tni Council of the Chemehuevi Indian Tribe ("Tribe") does hereby ordain as follows: 

. . Section 1. Fmbes and Declarations. The Tribal Council for the Tribe finds and declares 

that: I 

1. The planned expansion of the Casino requires additional commitments of time of the 

Gaming Commissioners who now number only three (3). 

2. Few Commissioners live on the Reservation, requiring long travel times for the 

Commissioners to reach the Casino, which in the course of their duties they must visit. 

3. By increasing the number of Gaming Commissioners, the Gaming Commission will 

be able to conduct its business more efficiently than at present. 

4. Therefore the Tribal Council is amen- its Gaming Ordinance to increase the number 

of Gaming Commissioners to number five (5). 

Section1 . Amendment o f Section 4 of 0 r d e inanc No. 2000-01. entitled "AN ORDINANCE 

OF THE CFfEMEHUEVI INDIAN TRIBE AUTHORIZING AND REGULATING GAMING ON 

THE CHEMEHUEVI INDIAN RESERVATION". Section 4, of Ordinance No. 2000-01, entitled 

"Gaming Commission" is hereby amended and shall read as follows: 

Section 4.a. - There is established by the Tribe a Commission, acting under the authority of 

the Tribe, to be known as the Chemehuevi Gaming Commission. The Commission shall be 

appointed by the Chemehuevi Tribal Council and composed of five (5) persons who would 

themselves qllalift for licensing under this Ordinance. Two of the Commissioner shall also 

reside full-time on the Chemehuevi Indian Reservation. 

Section 2. Effative Date. This Ordinance shall take effect as of the date of its enactment by 

the Tribal Council. 

CERTIFICATION 

The foregoing Ordinance was adopted at a regular meeting of the Chemehuevi Tribal Council 

held on June 28,2003, by the following vote: AYES: 7, NOES: I, ABSTAIN:l,and ABSENT:O 

c'&*hd D& a- C 

Edward D. "Tito" Smith, Chairman 

ATTESTED: 

cretiry-~reasurer' 

A:\Amend[ll.Gam.Ord.Comm'rs.wpd 

July 22. 2003
Exhibit
10.16 


 


AMENDMENT
OF 


PATENT
& TECHNOLOGY EXCLUSUVE LICENSE AGREEMENT


 


THIS
AMENDMENT (the “Amendment”) is made and entered into as of the 25th day of October, 2021 (the
“Effective Date”) by and among BITECH MINING CORPORATION (“BITECH”), a corporation organized
and existing under the laws of the State of Wyoming with its corporate office at 1620 Central Ave, Suite 202, Cheyenne, WY 82001
(the “Company”), and SUPERGREEN ENERGY CORP (“SGE”), a Nevada corporation with its principal
place of business at 600 Anton Blvd, Suite 1100, Costa Mesa, CA 92626. The corporations are sometimes referred to herein
collectively, as the “Parties.”


 


RECITALS


 


		A.	BITECH
                                            was formed in the State of Wyoming in order to provide power saving green solutions to the
                                            cryptocurrency mining industry including R&D and commercialization relating to the industry.



 


		B.	SGE
                                            was formed in the State of Nevada in order to provide power saving technology solutions with
                                            Tesdison technology, an invention with U.S. Patent No. 10,547,179 B2.



 


		C.	On
                                            January 15, 2021, SGE granted Worldwide Exclusive License of U.S. Patent No. 10,547,179 B2
                                            to BITECH for the crypto mining industry for the initial four-year period with an option
                                            to extent.



 


		D.	As
                                            of the date hereof, SGE amends the Worldwide Exclusive License of Patent No. 10,547, 179
                                            B2 to BITECH to extend from the initial four-year license to a perpetual license for the
                                            lifespan of the U.S. Patent No. 10,547,179 B2.



 


		E.	This
                                            Agreement remains in effect other terms agreements relating to the same subject matter.



 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused their duly authorized representatives to execute this Patent & Technology License
Agreement.


 





	SUPERGREEN ENERGY CORPORATION	 
	 	 
	By	/s/ Calvin Cao	 
	 	Calvin Cao/ President and CEO	 
	 	 
	BITECH MINING CORPORATION	 
	 	 
	By	/s/ Benjamin Tran	 
	 	Benjamin Tran/ President & CEO
**BG** IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 19 - 0 545 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. RANDY CHRISTOPHER ARCHIBALD SR. ,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30 - day extension of time, and good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is gran ted an extension of time to and including Dec em

ber 30 , 20 20 , within which to prepare, serve, and file its response brief.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

November 18 2020

11/18/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0545
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-01-2000
<CASH>                                           12103
<SECURITIES>                                     30805
<RECEIVABLES>                                   102820
<ALLOWANCES>                                      4350
<INVENTORY>                                     106185
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                272330
<PP&E>                                          281038
<DEPRECIATION>                                  156236
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  423941
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            88374
<BONDS>                                          56305
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          3872
<OTHER-SE>                                      262237
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    423941
<SALES>                                         577319
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                579262
<CGS>                                           399833
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    96103
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  9445
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   568
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                2790
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  70523
<INCOME-TAX>                                     26800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              43723
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     73723
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.19


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

 <ARTICLE> 7
<CIK> 0000823533
<NAME> FORTIS BENEFITS INSURANCE COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                         2,548,887
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                      96,530
<MORTGAGE>                                     761,221
<REAL-ESTATE>                                   39,998
<TOTAL-INVEST>                               3,657,888
<CASH>                                         (49,986)
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                              43,478
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                         435,509
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,794,386
<POLICY-LOSSES>                              3,130,437
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                             28,606
<POLICY-OTHER>                                 245,303
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                            7,441
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                      0
<COMMON>                                         5,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     824,650
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,794,386
<PREMIUMS>                                     736,561
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                            141,250
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                              (4,789)
<OTHER-INCOME>                                  33,273
<BENEFITS>                                     587,407
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                     31,048
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                           227,104
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 60,736
<INCOME-TAX>                                    20,411
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             40,325
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    40,325
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<RESERVE-OPEN>                               1,139,603
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0



</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.1





CERTIFICATION





I, Gary Kouletas, certify that:





1.       I have reviewed this quarterly report of Form 10-Q/A of All Grade Mining, Inc. (Formerly Hybred International, Inc.)





2.
Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 period covered by this quarterly report.





3.
Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report.





4.
I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and I 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, is made known to me by others within the company, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared; and





b)           Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements fort external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles; and





c)           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 upon such evaluation; and





d)           Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.





5.
I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function);





a)       All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant’s auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and





b)       Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls.





Date: November 28, 2011


/s/ Gary Kouletas


Gary Kouletas


President (Principal Executive Officer)








-19-
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED MAY 29, 2015

NO. 03-13-00202-CR

Steven DeLeon, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 421ST DISTRICT COURT OF CALDWELL COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES PEMBERTON AND BOURLAND

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE

This is an appeal from the judgment entered by the trial court. Having reviewed the record and 

the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the trial court’s

judgment. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment. The appellant shall pay all 

costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          15,093
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      6,898
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                28,225
<PP&E>                                          72,844
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (40,567)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 219,680
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,196,682
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         6,008
<OTHER-SE>                                  (1,083,455)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   219,680
<SALES>                                          2,483
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,483
<CGS>                                              403
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      403
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               394,920
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 966
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (393,806)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (393,806)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0



</TABLE>
#### *In re*Lissburger.

*(Circuit Court, S. D. New York.*

April 11, 1881.)

1. In re Lissburger, 2 Fed. Rep. 153, Affirmed.

In Bankruptcy.

*John F. Dillon*and *M. H. Regenshurger,*for the .review.

*R. D. Benedict,*and *J. F. Malcolm,*opposed.

Blatchford, C. J.

I have carefully considered the questions in this case, and am of opinion that the order made herein by the district court, bearing date April 3, 1880, and spoken of in the petition of review as having been made and entered on or about April 6, 1880, was a proper order, and that the prayer of said petition must be denied, with costs.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Robert M. Kirzoncic, Jr., Appellant.

[975 NYS2d 890]

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from an amended sentence of the County Court, Dutchess County (Greller, J.), imposed July 18, 2013, on the ground that the amended sentence was excessive.

Ordered that the amended sentence is affirmed.

The amended sentence imposed was not excessive *(see People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Eng, EJ., Dillon, Balkin, Cohen and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 21

SUBSIDIARIES OF CONSTELLATION ENERGY GROUP, INC.*

|                                            |  | Jurisdiction of Incorporation
|------------------------------------------- |  | -----------------------------
|Baltimore Gas and Electric Company          |  | Maryland                     
|Constellation Holdings, Inc.                |  | Maryland                     
|Constellation Investments, Inc.             |  | Maryland                     
|Constellation Power, Inc.                   |  | Maryland                     
|Constellation Real Estate Group, Inc.       |  | Maryland                     
|Constellation Enterprises, Inc.             |  | Maryland                     
|Constellation Power Source, Inc.            |  | Delaware                     
|Constellation Energy Source, Inc.           |  | Delaware                     
|Safe Harbor Water Power Corporation         |  | Pennsylvania                 
|BGE Home Products & Services, Inc.          |  | Maryland                     
|Constellation NewEnergy, Inc.               |  | Maryland                     
|Constellation Generation Group, LLC         |  | Maryland                     
|Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Inc.    |  | Maryland                     
|Constellation Nuclear Services, Inc.        |  | Maryland                     
|Constellation Power Source Generation, Inc. |  | Maryland                     
|Constellation Power Source Holdings, Inc.   |  | Maryland                     
|BGE Capital Trust I                         |  | Delaware                     
|Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC        |  | Delaware                     

---

---

QuickLinks
EXHIBIT
      32.1





CERTIFICATION
      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 quarterly report of 110 Media Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on August 14, 2007 (the “Report”), I, William Mobley,
      Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.
      1350,
      as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of operations of the
                Company.








/s/
      William Mobley





William
      Mobley


Chief
      Executive Officer


August
      14, 2007





A
      signed
      original of this certification 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.
#### In the Matter of Paul S. et al., as Persons Having Placement of Colleen Y. and Others, Respondents, v Rita S. et al., Appellants. (And Five Related Proceedings.) (Appeal No. 2.)

Decided May 8, 2012

Appeal dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that the order appealed from does not finally determine the proceedings within the meaning of the Constitution.