alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 10.14


                                 TEN STIX INC.


                                  May 9, 2001


Kevin McShea
President & CEO, Expectra
6325 Monarch Park Place
Niwot, CO 80503

Dear Kevin:

     Thank you and Ken for meeting with us Monday. As we told you, our
relationship with Xpectra is very important to the success of Proshuffle. We
appreciate your understanding of Ten Stix Inc.'s current, and future financial
situation. We understand that all Proshuffle units, parts, tools, and drawings
are safe and secure. As you told us, you will not dispose of any of these items
and will work with Ten Stix, Inc. to acquire the complete lot. We all agreed
that Xpectra has a price of $110,175.98 on all of the Proshuffle parts and
units, a list of which is attached. Xpectra will take at least a 30% reduction
for a complete buyout. You also agrees to let us purchase parts of the inventory
separately at the prices listed on the inventory list if it would help Ten Stix
Inc. reestablish the Proshuffle product and complete the total acquisition of
all parts sooner. If you agree with this recount of our meeting, would you
please sign this letter and return a copy to us for our records. Thanks again
and we will be talking soon.


/s/  Kevin McShea                           /s/  Tony A. Cranford
------------------------------------        ------------------------------------
Kevin McShea                                Tony A. Cranford
President & CEO                             V.P. Ten Stix Inc.
Xpectra


                   P.O. BOX 699, IDAHO SPRINGS, COLORADO 80452
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                            2236
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       43
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  3094
<PP&E>                                           26888
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (13172)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   16935
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             1077
<BONDS>                                          12279
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                        3579
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     16935
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  5210
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     3297
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  1695
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  3548
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                1254
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (4584)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (4584)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (4584)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 (185.61)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (185.61)
        

</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Robert Haberski, Appellant, v New York City Department of Education et al., Respondents.

[822 NYS2d 539]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael D. Stall-man, J.), entered April 4, 2005, which denied the petition brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 seeking to annul respondent’s determination dismissing petitioner from his position as principal, and dismissed this proceeding, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner failed to establish that respondents’ determination regarding the calculation of his probationary service was either irrational or arbitrary and capricious. To the contrary, the record demonstrates that respondents began crediting the time petitioner served as principal of Sheepshead Bay High School at the start of the school year, when he officially assumed that position.

Petitioner’s three-year probationary period was frozen from September 2000 through the summer of 2003, while serving as a “principal assigned” at the Brooklyn High School Superintendent’s Office and during the final summer at South Shore High School. On August 23, 2003, he was assigned as principal at Sheepshead Bay, with still five months to go in his probationary status. Any work he voluntarily performed in preparation for that position while serving temporarily as principal assigned at South Shore, which was part of his frozen period, would not have been in furtherance of his probationary period, which is designed “to determine if appointees are ‘competent, efficient and satisfactory’ for purposes of recommending tenure” *(Matter of McManus v Board of Educ. of Hempstead Union Free School Dish,*87 NY2d 183, 188 [1995]). Petitioner has failed to establish that he achieved tenure by estoppel. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.E, Saxe, Marlow, Sullivan and Williams, JJ.
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

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

_______________________________________ __ Clerk April 3, 2009

d0331 

# Order

April 3, 2009

138506 & (10)(11)

In re WELLINGTON HAYES and ELIZABETH L. HAYES REVOCABLE TRUST

________________ _______________ __________/

ROBERT P. LADD, Petitioner-Appellee,

v SC: 138506 COA: 290931 St. Clair CC: 09-000230-AV PATRICIA SUNDERMAN, Respondent-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED. The application for leave to ap peal the March 24, 2009 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that th e questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motio n for stay is DENIED.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED April 18, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-50395 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ALONDRA TERCERO HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 4:05-CR-142-2

-------------------- Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Counsel appointed to represent Alondra Tercero Hernandez on appeal has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Tercero Hernandez has filed a response. Our independent review of counsel’s brief, the record, and Hernandez’s response discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
<Page>


EXHIBIT 4.5

                                    AGREEMENT

         THIS AGREEMENT is made this 22nd day of December, 1998, between Precis
Smart Card Systems, Inc., an Oklahoma corporation (the "Company"), and the
undersigned employee ("Employee").

         a. The Company and Employee are parties to a certain Agreement dated
July 1, 1996 (the "Stock Option Agreement"), whereby the Company has granted
certain options to Employee to acquire Common Stock of the Company. Capitalized
but undefined terms used herein are defined in the Stock Option Agreement. The
Company has recently caused its Common Stock to be subject to a reverse split.
The Company and Employee hereby desire to acknowledge that the options granted
pursuant to the Stock Option Agreement are modified as a result of the split and
to amend the Stock Option Agreement to specifically provide for antidilution.

         In consideration of the premises and other valuable consideration, the
receipt and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as
follows:

         1. AMENDMENT OF STOCK 0PTION AGREEMENT. The Stock Option Agreement is
hereby amended to add a new provision which reads in its entirety as follows:

         ADJUSTMENTS UNDER CHANGES IN CAPITALIZATION. The aggregate number of
share of Common Stock under stock options granted under this Agreement, the
option price and the total number of shares of Common Stock which may be
purchased by Employee on exercise of the stock options shall be appropriately
adjusted or modified by the Board of Directors of the Company to reflect any
recapitalization, stock split, merger, consolidation, reorganization,
combination, liquidation, stock dividend or similar transaction involving the
Company. Provided, any such adjustment shall be made in such a manner as to not
constitute a modification as defined in Section 424(h) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986, as amended.

         2. ACKNOWLEDGMENT WITH RESPECT TO 0PTIONS. Employee acknowledges and
agrees that the stock options which have previously vested under the Stock
Option Agreement have been adjusted as a result of the reverse stock split, and
as a result as of the date hereof Employee has options to acquire [NUMBER OF
SHARES] shares of Common Stock at an exercise price of $6.00 per share.

         3. CONTINUING EFFECT. Except as modified hereby, the Stock Option
Agreement remains in effect; provided, however, that the number of options which
may be issued in the future has been adjusted as a result of the reverse stock
split and may be further adjusted upon the occurrence of any of the events
specified in paragraph 1, above.

         DATED as of the date first above written.


COMPANY:                                 PRECIS SMART CARD SYSTEMS, INC.
                                         By /s/ JAMES LOUT
                                             Title President & CEO

EMPLOYEE:                                [EMPLOYEE SIGNATURE]
                                             Name [Name of Employee]







                                       19
IV 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 200 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the Senate should 

give its advice and consent to the ratification of the Convention on 

the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 8, 2019 

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York (for herself and Ms. SCHAKOWSKY) 

submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee 

on Foreign Affairs 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that 

the Senate should give its advice and consent to the 

ratification of the Convention on the Elimination of All 

Forms of Discrimination Against Women. 

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep2 resentatives that— 

3 (1) the full realization of the rights of women 

4 is vital to the development and well-being of people 

5 of all nations; and 

6 (2) the Senate should, therefore, give its advice 

7 and consent to the ratification of the Convention on 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 200 IH 

1 the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination 

2 Against Women. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
#### In Re: ALL AMERICAN SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., et al., Debtors. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Semiconductor, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. AASI Creditor Liquidating Trust, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 10-12258

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

March 15, 2011.

Jack R. Reiter, Jordan Scott Kosches, Adorno & Yoss, P.A., Coral Gables, FL, Simon Aron, Wolf Rifkin Shapiro Schul-man Rabkin, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Alan *892J. Perlman, Adorno *&*Yoss, LLP, Fort Lauderdale, FL, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Robert William Turken, Mindy A. Mora, Scott N. Wagner, Bilzin, Sumberg, Barna, Price *&*Axelrod, LLP, Miami, FL, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before TJOFLAT, CARNES and FAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The sole issue in this appeal is the adequacy of the appellee’s reservation of claims (as a debtor in bankruptcy) against appellants to preclude the application of *res judicata*or collateral estoppel to post confirmation actions. Both the Bankruptcy Judge and the District Judge found the reservations set forth in the pleadings filed in the bankruptcy proceedings adequate and legally sufficient. We agree.

AFFIRMED.
Electronically Filed 

Supreme Court 

SCPW-15-0000507 

27-JUL-2015 

01:29 PM 

SCPW-15-0000507
 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I
 

NELSON WAIKIKI, JR., Petitioner,
 

vs.
 

THE HONORABLE RHONDA LOO, JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE


SECOND CIRCUIT, STATE OF HAWAI'I, Respondent Judge,
 

and
 

STATE OF HAWAI'I, Respondent.
 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
 

(CR. NO. 13-1-0428)
 

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE
 

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
 

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)
 

Upon consideration of the document submitted by 

Michelle Denise Waikiki, on behalf of Nelson Waikiki Jr., 

entitled “Petition for Habeas Corpus, for Cause,” filed on July 

7, 2015, the documents attached thereto and submitted in support 

thereof, and the record, it appears that (1) Michelle Denise 

Waikiki is not an attorney licensed to practice law in the State 

of Hawai'i, see HRS § 605-14 (Supp. 2014), and (2) Petitioner has 

alternative means to seek post-conviction relief and presents no 

special reason for this court to invoke its jurisdiction at this 

time, see Oili v. Chang, 57 Haw. 411, 412, 557 P.2d 787, 788 
(1976) (the supreme court “will not exercise its original
 

jurisdiction in habeas corpus proceedings when relief is
 

available in a lower court and no special reason exists for
 

invoking its jurisdiction”). Accordingly, 


IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the appellate clerks’ office
 

shall file the petition for a writ of habeas corpus without
 

payment of the filing fee. 


IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for a
 

writ of habeas corpus is denied without prejudice to Petitioner
 

seeking relief in the circuit court, as appropriate.
 

IT IS HEREBY FINALLY ORDERED that the appellate clerk’s
 

office shall not accept any further filings signed by Michelle
 

Denise Waikiki on behalf of Petitioner. 


DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, July 27, 2015. 

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald 

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama 

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna 

/s/ Richard W. Pollack 

/s/ Michael D. Wilson 

2
<PAGE>


                                   EXHIBIT 4.3

                       FIRST AMENDMENT TO BROOKTROUT, INC.
              SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED 1992 STOCK PURCHASE PLAN

         This First Amendment (the "First Amendment") to the Brooktrout, Inc.
(the "Company") Second Amended and Restated 1992 Stock Purchase Plan, dated as
of January 1, 2001 (the "Purchase Plan"), was adopted by the Board of Directors
(the "Board") of the Company on March 28, 2001.

         WHEREAS, the Board approved and adopted, subject to stockholder
approval, the amendment to increase by two hundred thousand (200,000) the
maximum number of shares of common stock, $.01 par value per share, reserved and
available for issuance under the Purchase Plan, from two hundred and
eighty-seven thousand five hundred (287,500) to four hundred and eighty-seven
thousand five hundred (487,500);

         NOW, THEREFORE, the Purchase Plan is hereby amended in the following
manner: The second sentence of the first paragraph is amended to increase the
number of shares of Stock reserved and available for purchase under the Purchase
Plan from two hundred and eighty-seven thousand five hundred (287,500) to four
hundred and eighty-seven thousand five hundred (487,500).
NUMBERS 13-15-00005-CR, 13-15-00006-CR,

& 13-15-00007-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

JUAN JOE CANO, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 130th District Court

of Matagorda County, Texas.

ORDER

Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza, and Longoria

Order Per Curiam

This cause is before the Court on appellant’s motion to supplement the reporter’s 

record. Appellant requests that this Court direct the Matagorda County District Clerk to 

release Defendant’s Exhibit One, a video of the crime scene and two still photographs, to 

the court reporter and have the court reporter make a supplemental reporter’s record 
2

containing that data and forward it to this Court for filing. We GRANT appellant’s motion 

and direct the Matagorda County District Clerk to release Defendant’s Exhibit One, a 

video of the crime scene and two still photographs, to the court reporter. We further 

direct the court reporter to prepare and file a supplemental reporter’s record containing 

that data and forward it to this Court for filing within two weeks from the date of this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the

14th day of July, 2015.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

SHANTICE TILLERY, IN HER OWN 

RIGHT AND PARENT AND NATURAL 

GUARDIAN ON BEHALF OF HER MINOR 

SON, SHAMIR D. TILLERY

v.

THE CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF 

PHILADELPHIA, CHILDREN'S 

HEALTHCARE ASSOCIATES, INC., 

MONIKA GOYAL, M.D., JOEL FEIN, M.D., 

KYLE NELSON, M.D.

PETITION OF: THE CHILDREN'S 

HOSPITAL OF PHILADELPHIA AND 

MONIKA GOYAL, M.D.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 227 EAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 10th day of October, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.

The Application for Leave to File Reply is also DENIED.
Case 3:11-cv-00247-MLC-LHG Document 102-1 Filed 09/21/12 Page 1 of 18 PageID: 1302
Case 3:11-cv-00247-MLC-LHG Document 102-1 Filed 09/21/12 Page 2 of 18 PageID: 1303
Case 3:11-cv-00247-MLC-LHG Document 102-1 Filed 09/21/12 Page 3 of 18 PageID: 1304
Case 3:11-cv-00247-MLC-LHG Document 102-1 Filed 09/21/12 Page 4 of 18 PageID: 1305
Case 3:11-cv-00247-MLC-LHG Document 102-1 Filed 09/21/12 Page 5 of 18 PageID: 1306
Case 3:11-cv-00247-MLC-LHG Document 102-1 Filed 09/21/12 Page 6 of 18 PageID: 1307
Case 3:11-cv-00247-MLC-LHG Document 102-1 Filed 09/21/12 Page 7 of 18 PageID: 1308
Case 3:11-cv-00247-MLC-LHG Document 102-1 Filed 09/21/12 Page 8 of 18 PageID: 1309
Case 3:11-cv-00247-MLC-LHG Document 102-1 Filed 09/21/12 Page 9 of 18 PageID: 1310
Case 3:11-cv-00247-MLC-LHG Document 102-1 Filed 09/21/12 Page 10 of 18 PageID: 1311
Case 3:11-cv-00247-MLC-LHG Document 102-1 Filed 09/21/12 Page 11 of 18 PageID: 1312
Case 3:11-cv-00247-MLC-LHG Document 102-1 Filed 09/21/12 Page 12 of 18 PageID: 1313
Case 3:11-cv-00247-MLC-LHG Document 102-1 Filed 09/21/12 Page 13 of 18 PageID: 1314
Case 3:11-cv-00247-MLC-LHG Document 102-1 Filed 09/21/12 Page 14 of 18 PageID: 1315
Case 3:11-cv-00247-MLC-LHG Document 102-1 Filed 09/21/12 Page 15 of 18 PageID: 1316
Case 3:11-cv-00247-MLC-LHG Document 102-1 Filed 09/21/12 Page 16 of 18 PageID: 1317
Case 3:11-cv-00247-MLC-LHG Document 102-1 Filed 09/21/12 Page 17 of 18 PageID: 1318
Case 3:11-cv-00247-MLC-LHG Document 102-1 Filed 09/21/12 Page 18 of 18 PageID: 1319
EXHIBIT 31.2

              CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
                      SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

I, Marvin Wosk, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Maple Mountain
     Explorations 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 period 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 have:

     a.   designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 quarterly
          report is being prepared;
     b.   evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
          and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of
          this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and
     c.   presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
          effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
          evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5.   I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, 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 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; and

6.   I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were
     significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could
     significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most
     recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to
     significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
8th day of September, 2006.


/s/ Marvin Wosk
---------------------------
Chief Financial Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

JEFFREY M. MULLER; et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

THE HON. PHILIP J. MAENZA, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:10-CV-6110 (WHW) (CCC)

SUPPLEMENTAL

DECLARATION OF

JOHN DRAKE

I, John Drake, declare as follows:

1. I am one of the Plaintiffs in the above-captioned action.

2. I am a member of Plaintiff Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs.

3. I am a member of Plaintiff Second Amendment Foundation.

I affirm all of the foregoing statements under penalty of perjury under the laws of the

United States of America.

Dated: February /£. 2011

John

Case 2:10-cv-06110-WHW-MCA Document 29-3 Filed 02/18/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 304