alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT  32

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

	The undersigned, Robert Hipple, Chief Executive Officer, and Chief
Financial Officer of American Development & Investment Fund, Inc. (the Company)
DOES HEREBY CERTIFY, that:

1.	The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006 (the
Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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.

	IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned has executed this statement
this 29th of March, 2007.

								   /s/ Robert Hipple
								By..........................
								  Robert Hipple,
                                                  Chief Executive Officer
                                                  Chief Financial Officer

     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to American Development & Investment Fund, Inc. and will be
retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
No. 57721.

#### E. M. Sergeant Pulp & Chemical Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 200461-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

From an examination of the papers in this case, the court was unable to find anything to overcome the presumption of correctness of the collector’s classification. The protest was therefore overruled.
No. 50481.

#### Protests 75980-K, etc., of Arkwright Merchandise Corp. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall; J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the court found that the facts herein agreed upon were such as to bring the case within the holding in *John Barr*v. *United States*(11 Cust. Ct. 88, C. D. 801), which record was incorporated herein. (See *John Barr*v. *United States,*324 U. S. 83, decided February 5, 1945.) In accordance therewith it was held that the currency of the invoices should be converted at the buying rate in the New York market at noon on the day of exportation (the “free” rate of exchange for pounds sterling), as certified by the Federal Reserve bank and set forth by the collector on each of the entries. The protests were sustained to this extent.
Exhibit 10.10







PROMISSORY NOTE




Englewood, Colorado$200,000.00
April 16, 2007




Nathaniel Energy Corporation, a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 8001 South InterPort Blvd., Suite 260, Englewood, Colorado 80112 (the “Payor”), for value received, hereby unconditionally promises to pay to the order of RICHARD C. STRAIN,an individual residing at 15 Loockerman Avenue, Poughkeepsie, New York 12601 (the “Payee”), on the earlier of (i) the date of commencement of any bankruptcy, insolvency or similar proceedings in respect of the Payor and (ii) a demand therefore by the Payee in the lawful money of the United States of America, the principal sum of TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND and 00/100 ($200,000.00) DOLLARS, together with interest thereon as hereinafter provided: provided that no demand for payment shall be made by the Payee pursuant to the paragraph (ii) hereinabove prior to September 30, 2007.




SECTION 1.  Interest. Interest shall accrue and be payable quarterly on the outstanding principal amount of this Promissory Note at the rate of nine percent (9%). Interest shall be computed based upon a 365 day year.




SECTION 2.  Priority. This Promissory Note shall not be subordinated or junior in right of payment or distribution to any other indebtedness, liabilities or obligation of any kind or nature whatsoever and shall be senior or pari passuin right of payment and distribution to any and all such other indebtedness, liabilities and obligations of the Payor.




SECTION 3.  Security. The obligations under this Note are secured by the Security Agreement between Payor and Payee of even date herewith.





SECTION 4.  Miscellaneous. (a) The Payor hereby waives presentment, demand, protest and notice of any kind whatsoever in connection with this Promissory     Note. The nonexercise by the holder of any of its rights hereunder in any particular instance shall not constitute a waiver thereof in that or any subsequent instance.




(b)The Payor may prepay all or part of the principal hereof at any time without penalty.




(c)This Promissory Note shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the law of the State of New York.









(d)All borrowings evidenced by this Promissory Note and all payments  and prepayments of the principal hereof and interest hereon shall be recorded by such    holder in its internal records, provided, however,that the failure of the holder hereof to   make such a notation or any error in such a notation shall not affect the obligation of the Payor under this Promissory Note. All payments and prepayments payments received by the Payee shall be applied first to accrued interest and, thereafter, to principal.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this Promissory Note to be duly executed as of the day and year first above written.




NATHANIEL ENERGY CORPORATION
Before the Third Division,

June 21, 1962

No. 66870.

#### Brick, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 61/17732, etc. (Laredo).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of face brick similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Bunker Hill Brick & Supply, Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(46 Cust. Ct. 95, C.D. 2240), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Sheet1

Notes: (1) We are now sampling on a monthly schedule for MACT purposes and still a quarterly schedule for state

reporting. The only tests included in this report are the quarterly tests because these are the only ones with 

monitors, inlets, and outlets run together.

(2) Since we are testing by method 13 now for outlets and monitors I have reported total fluoride.

(3) Evolution continues to be biased high by the B3/B2 crossover duct.

Actual losses in lbs/ton of aluminum produced:

109Mon 108Mon B2 unit B3 unit B5 unit B5 inlet B2 inlet B3 inlet Evolution

Q1_99 0.85 3.63 0.633 2.82 0.08 88.45 80.38 76.70 87.18

Q2_99 1.55 2.37 0.795 3.41 1.01 64.73 75.26 58.29 70.82

Q3_99 1.29 3.50 0.563 5.54 0.47 69.96 73.33 65.36 73.48

Q4_99 0.85 3.00 0.466 3.07 0.21 72.04 76.32 74.30 75.46

Year_99 1.14 3.13 0.61 3.71 0.44 73.80 76.32 68.66 76.74

Hooding and Unit Efficiency, %:

109_hood 108_hood B2_unit B3_unit B5_unit Plant_hood Plant_unit

Q1_99 99.05 95.68 99.22 96.45 99.91 97.70 99.08

Q2_99 97.66 96.95 98.95 94.47 98.46 97.38 97.76

Q3_99 98.19 95.44 99.24 92.19 99.33 97.09 97.88

Q4_99 98.83 96.22 99.39 96.03 99.71 97.79 98.91

Year_99 98.43 96.07 99.20 94.78 99.35 97.49 98.41

Page 1
•Case No. 9,067.

#### MARET et al. v. WOOD.

[3 Cranch, C. C. 2.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Dec. Term, 1826.

Pleading at Law — General Issue — What It Admits.

By pleading the general issue the defendant admits the right of the plaintiffs to sue by the name of Charles Maret & Son, without naming the son; and a note, indorsed to the plaintiffs by that name, and produced bythem on the trial, is primfi. facie evidence of the existence of such a firm.

Assumpsit, on the defendant’s promissory note for $163.25, dated May 27, 1820, payable twelve months after date to one Thomas Williams, or order, and by him indorsed “to Charles Maret & Son.” Plea, non assump-sit, and issue. The declaration stated that “William Wood was attached to answer to Charles Maret & Son, trading under the firm of Charles Maret & Son,” without naming the son, whereupon the said plaintiffs complain, &c.

Mr. Hall, for defendant,

prayed the court to instruct the jury that the plaintiffs could not recover unless they proved, by other evidence than the indorsement, the existence of such a house or- copartnership as that of Charles Maret & Son; which instruction THE COURT refused to give, (THRUSTON, Circuit Judge, absent,) being of opinion that the defendant, by pleading the general issue, had admitted the existence of such a firm and the competency of the plaintiffs to sue by that name; and that if the defendant had now any remedy, it must be by motion in arrest of judgment.

MORSELL, Circuit Judge,

was of opinion that the production of the note by the plaintiffs, indorsed to them, by that name, was primfi facie evidence of the existence of such a firm.

Verdict for the plaintiff.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1 The court also reminds plaintiff’s counsel that as of

January 4, 2005, local rules require all parties to electronically

file all documents. Although the court accepted plaintiff’s

counsel’s response in this one instance, failure to electronically

file in the future may result in further sanctions.

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DIRECTV, INC., a California

corporation,

NO. CIV. S-04-2534 LKK/DAD

Plaintiff,

v. O R D E R

MICHAEL CROW,

Defendant.

 /

On April 22, 2005, this court ordered counsel for plaintiff

to show cause, within 15 days of the effective date of the order,

why sanctions should not be imposed for failing to file a status

report. The court is in receipt of plaintiff’s counsel’s

response.1

Case 2:04-cv-02534-LKK -DAD Document 16 Filed 05/10/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

No good cause being shown,counsel for plaintiff is sanctioned

in the amount of one hundred and fifty ($150.00) dollars. This sum

shall be paid to the Clerk of the Court no later than thirty (30)

days from the effective date of this order. Counsel shall file an

affidavit accompanying the payment of this sanction which states

that it is paid personally by counsel, out of personal funds, and

is not and will not be billed, directly or indirectly, to the

client or in any way made the responsibility of the client as

attorneys' fees or costs.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: May 9, 2005.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:04-cv-02534-LKK -DAD Document 16 Filed 05/10/05 Page 2 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Proposed Order Granting Defendants’ Request for Extension of

Discovery Deadline for Limited Purpose of Completing Plaintiff’s Deposition

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SACRAMENTO DIVISION

O.Z. MARTIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

JEANNE WOODFORD, et al.,

Defendants.

2:04-cv-2360 MCE CMK P

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST TO

EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINE

FOR LIMITED PURPOSE OF

COMPLETING PLAINTIFF’S

DEPOSITION 

Defendants’ first request to extend discovery deadline for limited purpose of

completing Plaintiff’s deposition was considered by this Court, and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants have to and including October 16, 2006,

within which to complete Plaintiff’s deposition.

October 4, 2006

/s/ CRAIG M. KELLISON 

Craig M. Kellison

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:04-cv-02360-ALA Document 40 Filed 10/04/06 Page 1 of 1
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-06-00574-CV

In re Ivo Nabelek

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

We deny the petition for writ of mandamus filed by Ivo Nabelek.

 

G. Alan Waldrop, Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices B. A. Smith and Waldrop

Filed: November 14, 2006
<PAGE>   1





                                   EXHIBIT 23

                 SUNAMERICA INC. AND CONSOLIDATED SUBSIDIARIES

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS



   
         We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the
Prospectuses constituting part of the Registration Statements on Form S-8
pertaining to the Amended and Restated 1978 Employee Stock Option Program (No.
2-53718) and the 1988 Employee Stock Plan (No. 33-28744) and Form S-3
pertaining to Debt Securities, Preferred Stock, Common Stock, Warrants to
Purchase any of the foregoing Debt Securities, Preferred Stock and Common
Stock, Stock Purchase Contracts and Stock Purchase Units (No. 333-14201,
333-14201-01, 333-14201-02, 333-14201-03 and 333-14201-04) of SunAmerica Inc.
of our report dated November 8, 1996, except as to Note 13 which is as of
November 29, 1996, appearing on page F-2 of this Form 10-K. We also consent to 
the incorporation by reference of our report on the Financial Statement 
Schedules, which appears on page S-2 of this Form 10-K. 
    





   
Price Waterhouse LLP
Los Angeles, California
December 10, 1996
#### Carolyn Strecker, Formerly Known as Carolyn Sarafian, Appellant, v Walter Sarafian, Respondent.

[633 NYS2d 90]

—Crew III, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Lynn, J.H.O.), entered May 4, 1994 in Ulster County, which denied plaintiff’s motions to modify the terms of a receivership.

In October 1990, defendant’s property was placed in receivership due to his failure to meet certain obligations contained in the judgment divorcing him from plaintiff. Under the terms of the receivership, the receiver is to use defendant’s assets to first meet his child support obligations and to thereafter satisfy the outstanding money judgments entered in favor of plaintiff and against defendant. In July 1993, plaintiff moved by order to show cause seeking to modify the terms of the receivership by directing the receiver to sell defendant’s real property and use the proceeds from such sales to satisfy a particular money judgment entered in favor of plaintiff and her current spouse. By order dated September 6, 1993, Supreme Court directed the receiver to file an accounting and reserved decision on plaintiff’s application pending receipt of such accounting and a hearing. Although not entirely clear from the limited record before us, it appears that plaintiff thereafter applied to *697Supreme Court seeking similar relief. Supreme Court apparently heard oral argument on plaintiffs application on or about April 4, 1994 and, by order entered May 4, 1994, denied plaintiff the relief requested in both the July 1993 and April 1994 applications. This appeal by plaintiff followed.

We affirm. It appears that in support of her respective applications to modify the terms of the receivership, plaintiff submitted only her attorney’s affidavit and a two-page affidavit from a real estate appraiser. Counsel’s affidavit, which purports to set forth an analysis of, *inter alia,*defendant’s child support obligation through 2005, the tax obligations on and the fair market value of the various parcels of land at issue, and the moneys due plaintiff under a certain money judgment, is conclusory, self-serving and, most importantly, completely bereft of *any*supporting documentation. The appraiser’s affidavit, which does little more than offer an estimate as to the total fair market value of the subject parcels, is similarly deficient. Accordingly, we cannot conclude that Supreme Court erred in denying plaintiff the requested relief.

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Casey and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID GATHINGS,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-2210 MCE PAN P

vs.

GEORGE J. GIURBINO, Warden, 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. There currently exists no

absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d

453, 460 (9th Cir. 1996). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A authorizes the appointment of counsel at

any stage of the case “if the interests of justice so require.” See Rule 8(c), Fed. R. Governing

§ 2254 Cases. In the present case, the court does not find that the interests of justice would be

served by the appointment of counsel at the present time. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s July 17, 2006 request

for appointment of counsel is denied without prejudice.

DATED: July 27, 2006.

12/mp; gath2210.110

Case 2:04-cv-02210-MCE -KJN Document 21 Filed 07/28/06 Page 1 of 1
The National Women’s Business Council is a non-partisan federal government council created to serve as an independent source of advice and counsel to the President, 

Congress, and the U.S. Small Business Administration on economic issues of importance to women business owners. Members of the Council are prominent women 

business owners and leaders of women’s business organizations.

SOURCE: All data comes from the US Census’ 2007 Survey of Business Owners.

1

 Nonfarm businesses only. Women-owned defined as a woman or women owning 51% or more of the company. 2 Based on the 50 most populous counties and cities.

BRONX COUNTY, NY 40.5%

WAYNE COUNTY, MI 36.7%

KINGS COUNTY, NY 33.6%

MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WI 33.0%

PERCENTAGE OF WOMEN-OWNED BUSINESSES BY GEOGRAPHY2

D.C. 

34.5%

MD 

32.6%

HI 

31.0%

NM 

31.7%

THERE ARE 

WOMEN-OWNED BUSINESSES1

IN THE U.S.

20.1%INCREASE

FROM 2002 TO 2007

WOMEN-OWNED 

FIRMS MAKE UP 

 

OF ALL NONFARM 

BUSINESSES 

ACROSS THE COUNTRY 

AND GENERATE 

IN TOTAL RECEIPTS

DETROIT, MI 49.7% 

BALTIMORE, MD 36.9%

MILWAUKEE, WI 36.3%

CHICAGO, IL 36.0%

HEALTH CARE

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

EDUCATIONAL SERVICES

ADMINISTRATION AND SUPPORT, 

WASTE MANAGEMENT AND REMEDIATION SERVICES

RETAIL TRADE

ARTS, ENTERTAINMENT 

AND RECREATION

PERCENTAGE OF WOMEN-OWNED BUSINESSES BY INDUSTRY

 45.9%

37.0%

34.4%

30.4%

MINING, QUARRYING,

OIL AND GAS EXTRACTION

TRANSPORTATION 

AND WAREHOUSING

AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY

FISHING AND HUNTING

CONSTRUCTION

MANAGEMENT OF COMPANIES

AND ENTERPRISE

15.0%

11.4%

10.3%

7.9%

6.7%

52.0%

28.7%

1.2TRILLION

7.8 MILLION 11.7% OF THE FIRMS 

HAVE PAID EMPLOYEES

88.3%

NON-EMPLOYER 

FIRMS

A TOTAL OF 

MILLION EMPLOYEES

ACROSS THE COUNTRY 

WITH A PAYROLL OF 

7.6 

217.6 BILLION

1.1 MILLION

AVERAGE RECEIPTS OF

STATES WITH THE LARGEST PERCENTAGE

BY COUNTIES

BY CITIES

BUSINESSES OWNED BY WOMEN

GA 

30.9%
EXHIBIT 10(xvi)


                             BEVERLY SASSOON & CO.

                                   AGREEMENT

The following is a summary of an agreement (herein known as "The Agreement")
between International Cosmetics Marketing Company (herein known as "The
Company"), and, Beverly Sassoon and Elan Sassoon (herein known as "The
Sassoons").

It is agreed that:

         a)       A total of Three million stock options of The Company
                  currently held by The Sassoons and/or Capitol Distribution
                  will be cancelled and returned to the treasury of the Company;

         b)       The Sassoons will provide The Company with a breakdown of
                  these stock options as to the amount that will be cancelled by
                  each of The Sassoons and/or Capitol Distribution;

         c)       The Sassoons will settle the lawsuit within 15 business days
                  of Pennock Marshall v The Sassoons et al and warrant that The
                  Company will not incur further legal expense or liability of
                  any nature as it relates to the Pennock Marshall lawsuit;

         d)       The Company will cancel the current debt of The Sassoons
                  related to the legal expenses of this lawsuit;

         e)       In the event that the aforementioned lawsuit is not settled
                  past that date of The Agreement, and/or if The Company incurs
                  further legal expense or liability of any nature related to
                  this lawsuit, The Company will forever withhold Royalty
                  payments to The Sassoons in an amount equal to the legal
                  expenses or the cost of such liability;

         f)       The Company will cancel the Indemnification Agreement
                  currently in place as it relates to The Sassoons and Beverly
                  Sassoon International;

         g)       The shareholders of the Company will elect Beverly Sassoon to
                  its Board of Directors;

         h)       Proper documents reflecting The Agreement will be prepared by
                  The Company, and;

         i)       The Agreement will act as an amendment to the original
                  agreement between The Sassoons and The Company, with all other
                  aspects of the original agreement remaining unchanged.

Signed and witnessed February 4, 2002:

/s/ Beverly Sassoon                                       /s/ (illegible)
-------------------------                                 -----------------
Beverly Sassoon                                              Witness


/s/ Elan Sassoon                                          /s/ (illegible)
-------------------------                                 -----------------
Elan Sassoon                                                 Witness


/s/ (illegible)                                           /s/ Sonny Spoden
-------------------------                                 -----------------
On Behalf of the Company                                     Witness
Before the Second Division,

March 1, 1950

No. 54075.

#### Engis Equipment Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 116900-K/309, etc. (Chicago).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The protests were dismissed.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID RAY WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2559 LKK KJM P

vs.

CSP-SOLANO, et al., 

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action

seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On August 4, 2006, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Neither

party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be

supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that:

/////

Case 2:04-cv-02559-LKK -KJM Document 74 Filed 09/27/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

1. The findings and recommendations filed August 4, 2006, are adopted in full; 

2. Defendant Rohrer’s January 12, 2006 motion to dismiss is granted with respect

to plaintiff’s claim arising from events that occurred on September 22, 2004; and

3. Defendant Rohrer’s January 12, 2006 motion to dismiss is denied with respect

to plaintiff’s claim arising from events that occurred on December 12, 2003. 

DATED: September 26, 2006. 

Case 2:04-cv-02559-LKK -KJM Document 74 Filed 09/27/06 Page 2 of 2