alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Unassociated Document




Exhibit 10.4
















	
Glenn MacNeil


1554 Jarvie Crescent


Milton, Ontario


Canada L9T 5Z3

	
December 16, 2010













	
Re:

	
Purchase of Working Interest in the Liberty #1 Well and Nephi Prospect












Dear Glenn:







This letter will serve to confirm our understanding and agreement for the purchase by you from Hewitt Petroleum, Inc. (“HPI”) of a 0.50% working interest (“WI”), carried in the Liberty #1 Well only to the tanks, and “head’s up” as to all costs thereafter under the JOA in the Nephi Prospect (the “CWI”), as follows:







Sale of Interest.  You hereby agree to purchase, and HPI hereby agrees to sell, assign and convey to you, a 0.50% CWI as described above in the Liberty #1 Well, and 0.50% WI in the leases described below, subject to the conditions of the subscription agreement, original term sheet, and the joint operating agreement (JOA) to which you are already a signatory as non-operator. The purchase price of the interest shall be $30,000, payable to HPI by wire transfer on Monday, December 20, 2010.







Winn leases, N/2 Section 34, T12S, R1E, SLB&M, Juab County, Utah, comprising approximately 320 acres; 75.0% NRI







Freedom Oil & Gas lease, W/2 SW/4, T12S, R1E, SLB&M, Juab County, Utah, comprising approximately  127 acres; 75.0% NRI







Should this meet your understanding and agreement, please sign and date below.  We appreciate your continued support on this project.








	  	
Very truly yours,


	  	  	  
	  	
By:

	
/s/ Douglas C. Hewitt


	  	  	
Douglas C. Hewitt, President/CEO












ACCEPTED & AGREED:








	
By:

	
/s/ Glenn MacNeil

	  	
Dated: December 16, 2010


	  	
Glenn MacNeil

	  	  










15 W. South Temple, Suite 1050, Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 • Office 801.519.8500
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED
BALANCE SHEET AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS OF THIS QUARTERLY REPORT
ON FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                             671
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,767
<ALLOWANCES>                                       413
<INVENTORY>                                      3,492
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                10,983
<PP&E>                                           7,932
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,601
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  13,556
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,121
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                      54,016
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    13,556
<SALES>                                          6,568
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,636
<CGS>                                            3,090
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,001
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,360
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  26
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    249
<INCOME-TAX>                                        68
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                181
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       181
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.03


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6695

FRED WRIGHT, JR; GREGORY DONNELL MEBANE, Petitioners - Appellants, versus NORTH CAROLINA ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge. (CA-97-536-2, CA-97-538-2) Submitted: January 12, 1999 Decided: February 10, 1999 Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Fred Wright, Jr., Gregory Donnell Mebane, Appellants Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Fred Wright, Jr. and Gregory Donnell Mebane appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on their petitions filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed therecord and the district court’s opinions accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Wright v. North Carolina Attorney Gen. , Nos. CA-97-536-2; CA-97-538-2 (M.D.N.C. Apr. 1, 1998). 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.

DISMISSED
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.                  

###### Federal Election Commission

# AGENCY:

Federal Election Commission.

# DATE AND TIME:

 Thursday, September 14, 2017 at 11:15 a.m.

# PLACE:

 999 E Street NW., Washington, DC (Ninth Floor).

# STATUS:

 This meeting will be open to the public.

# ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED:

*Draft Advisory Opinion 2017-06:*                         Stein and Gottlieb.                    

*Draft Advisory Opinion 2017-05:*                         Great America PAC and Committee to Defend the President.                    

*Draft Advisory Opinion 2017-09:*                         Libertarian Association of Massachusetts.                              ( print page 42683)    

*Draft Advisory Opinion 2017-10:*                         Citizens Against Plutocracy.                    

Management and Administrative Matters.

Individuals who plan to attend and require special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should contact Dayna C. Brown, Secretary and Clerk, at (202) 694-1040, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting date.

# PERSON TO CONTACT FOR INFORMATION:

 Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.

Dayna C. Brown,

Secretary and Clerk of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 2017-19355 Filed 9-7-17; 4:15 pm]

 BILLING CODE 6715-01-P
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markm an Diane M. Hathaway

Alton Thomas Davis,

Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_________________________________________ Clerk November 3, 2010

d1027 

# Order

November 3, 2010

141381

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 141381

COA: 290833

Wayne CC: 08

- 013567

- FH

LAMAR EVANS,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the app lication for leave to appeal the May 13, 2010

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is GRANTED. The parties shall

address whether retrial is barred under the double jeopardy clauses of the state and

federal constitutions where the trial c ourt’s grant of defendant’s motion for a directed

verdict was based on an error of law and did not determine any actual element of the

charged offense.

The Criminal Defense Attorneys of Michigan, Prosecuting Attorneys Association

of Michigan, and Nationa l Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers are invited to file

briefs amicus curiae. Other persons or groups interested in the determination of the issue

presented in this case may move the Court for permission to file briefs amicus curiae.
### The Honorable Lyle E. Strom, United State s District Judge for 1 

### the District of Nebraska, adopting the report and recommenda tion of the Honorable David L. Piester , United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Nebraska. ___________ No. 95-2361

___________ Billy Roy Tyler, * * Appellant, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Robert Vondracek; Jane Doe, * District of Nebraska. Secretary; Bill McPhillips; * Lt. Roccofort, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: June 26, 1996 Filed: August 28, 1996

___________ Before FAGG, BOWMAN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.
BillyRoy Tyler appeals from the district court's dismissal of his 1 42 U.S.C . § 1983 action for failure to state a claim. Tyler contende d def endants conspired to deny him equal protection, due process, and hi s First and Eighth Amendment rights when they deni ed him use of a telephone. After de novo review of the record, we affirm onthe basis of the district court's order. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

### -2- A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
CIRCUIT COURT OF LOUDOUN COUNTY

#### Anielle Vial v. Debra Corbo and Carl Corbo

December 17, 2002

Case No. (Law) 26878

By Judge Thomas D. Horne

This case was heard without a jury upon a removal from the General District Court of Loudoun County. At the conclusion of the evidence and arguments of counsel, the Court found in favor of the plaintiff upon her claims of breach of her employment contract with the defendants and of the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Judgment was awarded upon these claims in the amount of $2,249.16. Included in the sum recovered are wages for holiday periods for which compensation was provided in the employment contract. Counts alleging breach of a vehicle loan contract, fraud, and unjust enrichment were stricken after the presentation of plaintiffs case. Liquidated damages were not found to be recoverable on the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff has submitted an attorney’s fees claim for 108.7 hours at $160.00 per hour. Additionally, costs in the amount of $1,063.60 incurred in the taking of two depositions are claimed. Plaintiff has filed a detailed declaration as to why a recovery of $18,455.60 is justified under the circumstances ofthis case.

Plaintiff is entitled to recover those fees and costs that are reasonable. In determining the reasonableness of the fee to be charged against the defendants, the Court may consider such factors as the time required, nature of the issues in controversy, customary fees charged for similar services, the amount in controversy and damages recovered, and the experience and ability of the lawyer. Virginia Rules of Prof 1 Conduct R. 1.5 (2002).

*428The plaintiff did not prevail on all of the issues in controversy. Three claims did not survive a motion to strike. Defendants’ failure to comply with the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and of the contract of employment with the plaintiff resulted in a recalculation of the minimum wage for work performed without the benefit of offsets for room and board. The hours worked were readily obtainable from the calendar kept by the defendants.

Attorney’s fees are not penal in nature. They should not be used to punish a party who, in good faith, failed to live up to their responsibilities under the Act. Recovery is limited to what is reasonable based upon an objective assessment of the time and effort necessary to effect the result obtained.

Counsel fees and costs in the amount of $2,100.00 will be awarded to the plaintiff.
Exhibit 10.7





Summary of BSA Terms and Conditions


Similar to share options, non-employee warrants (“BSAs”) entitle the holder to exercise the warrant for the underlying vested shares at an exercise price per share determined by our board of directors, which exercise price must be at least equal to the average closing price of the ordinary shares for the twenty trading days preceding the grant date of the BSAs. In addition to any exercise price payable by a holder upon the exercise of any non-employee warrant, non-employee warrants need to be subscribed for at a price at least equal to ten percent (10%) of the exercise price of the underlying ordinary shares, which subscription price is meant to reflect at least the fair market value of the applicable warrants on the date of grant. The limit on the size of the non-employee warrant pool is determined by our shareholders.


Administration. Pursuant to delegations granted at our annual shareholders’ meeting, our board of directors determines the recipients, dates of grant and exercise price of non-employee warrants, the number of non-employee warrants to be granted and the terms and conditions of the non-employee warrants, including the period of their exercisability and their vesting schedule. The board of directors has the authority to extend the post-termination exercise period of non-employee warrants after the end of the term of office.


Non-Employee Warrants . Our non-employee warrants granted to independent directors are generally subject to a vesting schedule as follows: 1/4 on the first anniversary of the date of grant and 1/16 to vest at the end of each quarter following the first anniversary for 36 months as from such date. Upon expiration of a director’s term of office, all of the BSAs granted to such director become immediately exercisable, provided that they can only be sold in accordance with the vesting schedule. The term of non-employee warrants is ten years from the date of grant or, in the case of death or disability of the beneficiary during such ten-year period, six months from the death or disability of the beneficiary. Unless a longer period is specified in the notice of grant or otherwise resolved by the board of directors, a non-employee warrant shall remain exercisable for 90 days following a beneficiary’s termination with the Company.


Non-employee warrants may be transferred to any person and may be exercised by their holder at any time subject to vesting and any other grant conditions, as applicable.


Change in Control . Most of our non-employee warrants provide that in the event of a change in control, as defined in the relevant grant documents, unvested warrants will automatically vest in full.
#### BANK OF AMERICA, National Trust and Savings Association, Enterprise Productions, Inc. and Sunset Securities Co., Plaintiffs, v. LOEW’S INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Defendant.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

March 1, 1956.

See also, 18 F.R.D. 491.

Schwartz & Frohlich, New York City, Ferdinand Pécora, David H. Horowitz, New York City, of counsel, for plaintiffs.

Phillips, Nizer, Benjamin & Krim, New York City, Louis Nizer, Paul Mar-tinson, Seymour Shainswit, New York City, of counsel, for defendant.

CASHIN, District Judge.

This appears to be a most complex action for breach of a contract for the distribution of plaintiffs’ motion pictures by the defendant. The complaint consists of thirty-four pages and contains fourteen causes of action and seeks judgment in the amount of $2,642,240.

The plaintiffs and the defendant have both moved pursuant to Rule 34 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., for discovery and inspection of certain categories of documents and records. Each opposes the others’ motion almost in toto. The general and only real grounds of opposition are substantially the same, i. e., that the other parties’ request is too broad and burdensome and merely made for the purposes of harassment.

*116It is the opinion of the Court that both defendant’s and plaintiffs’ motions for discovery are very broad. However, the only conclusion that can be reached upon examining the scope of discovery each requests and the respective affidavits in support, is that both parties consider this action a most complicated one, necessitating very extensive and broad discovery.

The Court therefore finds it difficult to attach much significance to the briefs and affidavits in opposition which are for the most part inconsistent to the parties' positions in support of their respective motions.

Taking into consideration the conceded complexity and magnitude of the suit and the contentions both parties make here as to the breadth of the issues in the case, it would be sheer guesswork for this Court to designate any particular item as irrelevant. This is true even though the Court is certain that both requests for discovery could be greatly limited by a more conciliatory approach. Perhaps, if these motions had been argued instead of submitted, the Court could have been of some assistance in this regard.

Plaintiffs’ motion is granted and defendant’s motion is granted.
EX-34.15
(logo) Grant Thornton

Audit * Tax * Advisory

Grant Thornton LLP
201 South College Street
Suite 2500
Charlotte, NC 28244

T 704.632.3500

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm


Board of Directors

Trimont Real Estate Advisors, Inc


We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying
Management's Certification Regarding Compliance with Applicable Servicing
Criteria ("Management's Report"), that Trimont Real Estate Advisors, Inc. (the
"Company") complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB as of and for the year
ended December 31, 2013, except for those criteria noted as not applicable (N/A)
within Exhibit A. The transactions covered by this report are only those
transactions processed by the Company in its capacity as trust, senior trust or
operating advisor for the asset backed securities transactions (the "Platform").
Reference Exhibit B for the transactions covered by this examination. Management
is responsible for the Company's compliance with the applicable servicing
criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion
about the Company's compliance with the applicable servicing criteria for the
Platform based on our examination.


Our examination was conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public
Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included
examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the
applicable servicing criteria for the Platform and performing such other
procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination
included testing selected asset-backed transactions and securities constituting
the Platform and evaluating whether the Company performed servicing activities
related to those transactions and securities in compliance with the applicable
servicing criteria for the period covered by this report. Accordingly, our
testing may not have included servicing activities related to each asset-backed
transaction or security constituting the Platform. Further, our examination was
not designed to detect material noncompliance that may have occurred prior to
the period covered by this report and that may have affected the Company's
servicing activities during the period covered by this report. We believe that
our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination
does not provide a legal determination on the Company's compliance with the
applicable servicing criteria.


1


(page)


In our opinion, management's assertion that Trimont Real Estate Advisors, Inc.
complied with the applicable servicing criteria identified in Exhibit A and
Exhibit B as of and for the year ended December 31, 2013 for the Platform is
fairly stated, in all material respects.


Charlotte, North Carolina

/s/ Grant Thornton LLP

March 1, 2014


2
Exhibit 32.2


Certification of Chief Financial Officer


Pursuant to


Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)


In connection with the annual report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended September 30, 2018 (the “Report”) of Oaktree Strategic Income Corporation (the “Registrant”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Mel Carlisle , the Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:


(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and


(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.





/s/    Mel CarlisleName:    Mel CarlisleDate: December 19, 2018