alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 10.1

 

SUBSCRIPTION AGREEMENT

 

QUEST MANAGEMENT INC.

 

The undersigned (the “Subscriber”) hereby irrevocably subscribes for that number of shares of common stock (the “Shares”) of QUEST MANAGEMENT INC, a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), set forth below, upon and subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the Company’s Prospectus dated _______, 20__, which has been delivered to the undersigned with this Subscription Agreement is attached and which the Subscriber acknowledges as having received and read.

 

Total number of shares subscribed for at US $0.04 per share: ________________ shares.

 

Amount paid with this Subscription Agreement at a price of US $0.04 per Share: US $__________________.

 

This Subscription Agreement constitutes the entire agreement among the parties hereto with respect to the subject matter hereof and may be amended only by a writing executed by all parties.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Subscription Agreement this ___ day of _____________, 20___.

 

	
Signature:

	
 

	
 


	
 

	
 

	
 


	
Print Name as it should appear on the Certificate:

	
 

	
 


	
 

	
 

	
 


	
Address:

	
 

	
 


	
 

	
 

	
 


	
 

	
 

	
 




 

If Joint Ownership, check one (all parties must sign above):

 

 ̈ Joint Tenants with Right of Survivorship

 ̈ Tenants in Common

 ̈ Community Property

 

If Fiduciary or Business Entity check one:

 

	
 ̈ Trust

	
Authorized Person _________________________________

	
Capacity ____________________________________


	
 

	
 

	
 


	
 ̈ Estate

	
Authorized Person _________________________________

	
Capacity ____________________________________


	
 

	
 

	
 


	
 ̈ Corporation

	
Authorized Person _________________________________

	
Capacity ____________________________________


	
 

	
 

	
 


	
 ̈ Limited Liability Company

	
Authorized Person _________________________________

	
Capacity ____________________________________


		
 

	
 


	 ̈ Partnership	
Authorized Person _________________________________

	
Capacity ____________________________________


		
 

	
 


	 ̈ Other________________(Describe)	
Authorized Person _________________________________

	
Capacity ____________________________________




 

Check, money order or bank draft shall be made payable to Quest Management Inc.

 

	 
	
1








	





  

ACCEPTANCE OF SUBSCRIPTION

 

The foregoing Subscription is hereby accepted for and on behalf of Quest Management Inc. this_____day of _____________, 20__.

 

 

	 	Quest Management Inc.	 
	 	 	 	 
		By:		 
	 	Name: 	Dmitrij Ozolins	 
	 	Title:	President 	 


 

 

 

2
Order entered December 9, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-00490-CR

No. 05-14-00491-CR

No. 05-14-00492-CR

No. 05-14-00493-CR

JIMIL BROWN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 194th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. F10-33944-M, F10-33945-M, F12-33914-M, F12-34048-M

ORDER

Counsel filed an Anders brief in these cases. The appeals are from appellant’s conviction 

following the adjudication of his guilt. Although counsel mentions the original plea proceedings, 

he does not discuss the March 26, 2012 or the September 12, 2012 hearings. Nor does the brief 

address the validity of the indictment, the admonishments, or any motions that may have been 

filed. Moreover, the record reflects that the conditions of appellant’s community supervision 

were modified, but counsel does not discuss the proceedings, if any, at which the modifications 

were made. Finally, counsel does not address any motions that were filed by appellant. 

Accordingly, we conclude the brief does not satisfy the requirements of Anders and its progeny. 
See Jeffery v. State, 903 S.W.2d 776 (Tex. App.––Dallas 1995, no pet.). Accordingly, we 

STRIKE the Anders brief filed by counsel on December 5, 2014.

We ORDER counsel to file, within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this order, either an 

amended brief that complies with the requirements of Anders and its progeny or a brief raising 

issues on the merits. 

/s/ LANA MYERS

JUSTICE
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3325 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.3325

                      One Hundred Eleventh Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
             the sixth day of January, two thousand and nine

                                 An Act

 
 To amend title XI of the Social Security Act to reauthorize for 1 year 
 the Work Incentives Planning and Assistance program and the Protection 
       and Advocacy for Beneficiaries of Social Security program.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
    This Act may be cited as the ``WIPA and PABSS Reauthorization Act 
of 2009''.
SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF THE WORK INCENTIVES PLANNING AND ASSISTANCE 
PROGRAM.
    Section 1149(d) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320b-20(d)) 
is amended by striking ``2009'' and inserting ``2010''.
SEC. 3. REAUTHORIZATION OF THE PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY FOR 
BENEFICIARIES OF SOCIAL SECURITY PROGRAM.
    Section 1150(h) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320b-21(h)) 
is amended by striking ``2009'' and inserting ``2010''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF
OPERATIONS FOUND ON PAGES 30 AND 31 OF THE COMPANY'S FORM 10K FOR THE YEAR ENDED
DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          11,863
<SECURITIES>                                     8,128
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,614
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     10,924
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                49,274
<PP&E>                                          12,090
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  68,120
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           18,240
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            16
<OTHER-SE>                                      49,864
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    68,120
<SALES>                                         59,186
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                59,186
<CGS>                                           37,595
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   37,595
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                45,432
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (22,030)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       337
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (22,367)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (22,367)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.52)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.52)
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT
32.2









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 Greystone Logistics, Inc. (the
"Company"), on Form 10-Q for the period ending February 28, 2009, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Robert H. Nelson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, 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.






April
      20, 2009
                    /s/ Robert
      H. NelsonRobert
      H. NelsonChief
      Financial Officer




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.





The
foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission as an exhibit to the Report and shall not be considered filed as part
of the Report.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

The Board of Directors
U.S. Foodservice:

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration
statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-67553, 333-81323 and 333-84889) and Form S-8
(Nos. 33-88140, 33-88142, 33-88144, 33-88146, 33-81011, 333-37359, 333-43185,
333-47759, 333-73447 and 333-78209) of U.S. Foodservice of our report, dated
August 16, 1999, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of U.S.
Foodservice and Subsidiaries as of June 27, 1998 and July 3, 1999 and the
related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity, and cash
flows and schedules for each of the years then ended, which report appears in
the Form 10-K of U.S. Foodservice for the year ended July 3, 1999.

/s/KPMG LLP
Baltimore, Maryland
September 29, 1999
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3376 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3376

To amend title 46, United States Code, to ensure the traditional right 
 of self-defense of United States mariners against acts of piracy, and 
                          for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 29, 2009

 Mr. LoBiondo (for himself and Mr. Cummings) introduced the following 
    bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and 
                             Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 46, United States Code, to ensure the traditional right 
 of self-defense of United States mariners against acts of piracy, and 
                          for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``United States Mariner and Vessel 
Protection Act of 2009''.

SEC. 2. USE FORCE AGAINST PIRACY.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 81 of title 46, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end the following new section:
``Sec. 8107. Use of force against piracy
    ``An owner, operator, time charterer, master, or mariner who uses 
force, or authorizes the use of force, to defend a vessel of the United 
States against an act of piracy shall not be liable for any injury or 
death caused by such force to any person participating in the act of 
piracy.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The analysis at the beginning of such 
chapter is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``8107. Use of force against piracy.''.

SEC. 3. AGREEMENTS.

    To carry out the purpose of this Act, the Secretary of the 
department in which the Coast Guard is operating shall work through the 
International Maritime Organization to establish agreements to promote 
coordinated action among flag- and port-states to deter, protect 
against, and rapidly respond to acts of piracy against the vessels of, 
and in the waters under the jurisdiction of, those nations, and to 
ensure limitations on liability similar to those established by section 
8107 of title 46, United States Code, as amended by this Act.
                                 <all>
```
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3072 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

9810 Halls Ferry Road in St. Louis, Missouri, as the ‘‘Coach Jodie 

Bailey Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 26, 2009 

Mr. CLAY (for himself, Mr. BLUNT, Mr. AKIN, Mr. CLEAVER, Mrs. EMERSON, 

Mr. GRAVES, Mr. LUETKEMEYER, Mr. SKELTON, and Mr. CARNAHAN) 

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 

Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 9810 Halls Ferry Road in St. Louis, Missouri, 

as the ‘‘Coach Jodie Bailey Post Office Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. COACH JODIE BAILEY POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 9810 Halls Ferry Road in St. 

6 Louis, Missouri, shall be known and designated as the 

7 ‘‘Coach Jodie Bailey Post Office Building’’. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
2 

•HR 3072 IH

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

4 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Coach Jodie Bailey 

5 Post Office Building’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND THE CONSOLIDATED INCOME
STATEMENT FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998 FOR CHASE INDUSTRIES INC. AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH COMPANY'S ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM
10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           9,200
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   31,240
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,060
<INVENTORY>                                     65,776
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               110,836
<PP&E>                                         135,173
<DEPRECIATION>                                  38,021
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 212,804
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           56,165
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           152
<OTHER-SE>                                     115,268
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   212,804
<SALES>                                        433,436
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               433,436
<CGS>                                          371,234
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  378,028
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                26,836
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,152
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 25,420
<INCOME-TAX>                                     9,660
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             15,760
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    15,760
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.04<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.01<F1>
<FN>
<F1>PRIMARY AND FULLY DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED FOR THE
THREE-FOR-TWO STOCK SPLIT EFFECTIVE JUNE 6, 1998.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### STATE OF CONNECTICUT *v.*MICHAEL JAMES PELELLA

(AC 30843)

Lavine, Alvord and Borden, Js.

Argued October 24

officially released November 15, 2011

Per Curiam.

The judgments are affirmed.
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of l aw of

the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court gener ally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Filed 5/15/96 TENTH CIRCUIT

________________________________ LEE TRAYLOR, ) ) Plaintiff-Appellant, ) ) v. ) No. 95-6348 ) (D.C. No. CIV-93-847-W) ROBERT K. DENTON; ROB P. ) (W.D. Okla.) MELTON; and DOUGLAS BYRD, ) ) Defendants-Appellees. )

_______________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

________________________________ Before PORFILIO, McKAY, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________ After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a);10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
This is an appeal from an order granting summary judgment after remand from a prior2

appeal. The record supports the trial court’s conclusion that Plaintiff did not respond to the renewed motion for summary judgment with sufficient facts to defeat the motion.
The judgment is AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.
Entered for the Court Monroe G. McKay Circuit Judge
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.4
                                                                    ------------



                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of our
report dated August 14, 1997, originally included in Rykoff-Sexton, Inc.'s Form
10-K, as amended by Form 10-K/A, for the fiscal year ended June 28, 1997, and
subsequently included in this Form 10-K dated September 24, 1998, into U.S.
Foodservice's (formerly JP Foodservices, Inc.) previously filed Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (File Nos. 33-88140, 33-88142, 33-88144, 33-88146, 33-
81011, 333-37359, 333-43185, 333-47759) and Form S-3 (File No. 333-59785).



Arthur Andersen LLP


Philadelphia, PA
September 24, 1998
#### Ernestine WARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EMPIRE VISION CENTERS, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 10-995-cv.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

May 11, 2011.

Ernestine Ward, Corning, NY, pro se.

Kristen E. Smith (Thomas G. Eron, on the brief), Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC, Syracuse, NY, for Defendant-Ap-pellee.

PRESENT: ROGER J. MINER, WALKER and RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges.

*128*SUMMARY ORDER*

Plaintiff-Appellant Ernestine Ward, proceeding *pro se,*appeals from a February 19, 2010 judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Larimer, *J.)*granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellee Empire Vision Centers, Inc., with respect to her claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e *et*see/., and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. § 621*et seq.*We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment *de novo,*construing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. *See Miller v. Wol-poff & Abramson, L.L.P.,*321 F.3d 292, 300 (2d Cir.2003). In doing so, we determine whether the district court properly concluded that there were no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. *Id.*

Upon an independent review of the record, we conclude that the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendant-Appellee for substantially the reasons stated by the district court in its thorough and well-reasoned opinion of February 18, 2010. *See Ward v. Empire Vision Ctrs., Inc.,*686 F.Supp.2d 243 (W.D.N.Y.2010).

We have considered all of Appellant’s arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-7809

MICHAEL A. WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

JOHN SANDERS, West Virginia Department of

Highways,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert Earl Maxwell, Senior

District Judge. (CA-99-114-2)

Submitted: March 8, 2001 Decided: March 16, 2001

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael A. Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Kozakewich, Jr.,

STEPTOE & JOHNSON, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael A. Williams appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint. We

have reviewed the record and the district’s opinion and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Williams’ motion for appointment of counsel and affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. Williams v. Sanders, No. CA-99-114-2 (N.D.W. Va. Dec. 7,

2000). 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