alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

I, John D.  Aquilino,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant  to  Section  906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  that the Annual
Report of Viastar Media  Corporation  on Form 10-KSB/A for the fiscal year ended
June 30,2004 fully complies with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the  Securities  Exchange  Act of 1934 and that  information  contained  in such
Annual  Report on Form  10-KSB/A  fairly  presents in all material  respects the
financial condition and results of operations of Viastar Media Corporation


Dated:   September 13, 2005        By: /s/ John D. Aquilino
                                           ---------------------------------
                                           John D. Aquilino
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer


     A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has
been provided to Viastar Media Corporation and will be retained by Viastar Media
Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
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 September 18, 2009

p0915 

# Order

September 18, 2009

137990

SAULT STE. MARIE TRIBE OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant/ Appellee, v SC: 137990 COA: 276712 Chippewa CC: 04-007606-CC BERNARD BOUSCHOR, Defendant/Appellant,

and

DANIEL T. GREEN, DAVID E. SCOTT, JAMES M. JANNETTA, and DA NIEL J. WEAVER, Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs/ Appellees,

and

PAUL W. SHAGEN, JO SEPH M. PACZKOWSKI, and JOLENE M. NERTOLI, Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs,

and

MILLER, CANFIELD, PADDOCK & STONE, P.L.C., Defendant/Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the November 18, 2008 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered. We DIRECT the parties to submit supplemental briefs, within 35 days of the da te of this order, addressing the issue whether Michigan’s governmental to rt liability act, MCL 691.1401 et seq ., applies to defendant Bernard Bouschor, the former tr ibal chairperson of plaintiff Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, in light of the Tribe’s status as a sovereign and the definitions contained in MCL 691.1401. The applicatio n for leave to appeal remains pending.
Exhibit 32



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 Ableauctions.com, Inc. Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Abdul Ladha, Chief Executive Officer and 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, to the best of my knowledge:

(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 Company.

Dated March 27, 2006



/s/ Abdul Ladha

Abdul Ladha

Chief Executive Officer & Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
#### William Hamilton, *Appellant, v.*Rudolph W. Schack and others, *Respondents.*

— Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and injunction reinstated and continued. Opinion *Per Curiam..*
#### DAVID COHEN, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. ALBERT SWITKY, *ET ALS.,*DEFENDANTS-PETITIONERS.

*Mr. Samuel Kalihman*for the petitioners.

*Mr. George G. Tartar*for the respondent.

May 29, 1967.

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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-30028 Summary Calendar

WADE P. JACKSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus RICHARD L. STALDER, Secretary, Department of Public Safety and Corrections, BURL CAIN, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, MARIE BOISE; CATHY ROBERTS, P. WELLS, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 96-CV-7485

- - - - - - - - - - November 6, 1998 Before DAVIS, DUHE’, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Wade P. Jackson, Louisiana prisoner No. 113076, has filed an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal, following the district court’s dismissal of his civil rights suit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A, and its determination that an appeal would be frivolous. By moving for IFP, Jackson is challenging the district court’s determination that IFP should not be granted on appeal because his appeal isNo. 98-30028 -2- not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor , 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). Jackson argues that he has a constitutional right to possess noncommercial nude photographs of his friends and relatives and that the district court erred by dismissing his complaint without allowing him an opportunity to respond. Jackson has failed to demonstrate that he is raising a nonfrivolous issue on appeal. We uphold the district court’s determination that the appeal is not taken in good faith, DENY Jackson’s motion for IFP status, and DISMISS his appeal as frivolous. See Baugh , 117 F.3d at 202 n.24; 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2. Jackson is cautioned that the filing of any additional frivolous lawsuits or appeals will result in his being barred from proceeding IFP pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons , 103 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 1996). MOTION FOR IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED. 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed

August 4 , 2022.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 21

- 00724

- CV

IN RE D & L OIL AND GAS LLC AND BAYKO, P REBEG, FAUCETT & ABBOTT, PLLC , Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 157th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2021

- 56699



### MEMORANDUM OPINION

On December 15, 2021 , relator s D & L Oil and Gas LLC and Bayko, Prebeg,

Faucett & Abbott, PLLC filed a petition for writ of m andamus in this court

. See
Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator s

ask this court to compel the Honorable Tanya Garrison, presiding judge of the 157th2

District Court of Harris C ounty

, to vacate her October 15, 2021 order granting TAI
Acquisition Corporation’s petition for Rule 202 presuit deposition

. 1

Relator s ha ve not established that they are e ntitled to mandamus relief.
Accordingly, we deny relators ’ petition for writ of mandamus.

PER CURIAM

Panel c onsists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Zimmerer and Wilson.

1 See Tex. R. Civ. P. 202.
DISMISS; and Opinion Filed December 15, 2015.

S

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-15-01323-CV

JAMES L. ROSS, Appellant

V.

JAMES S. BELL, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-15-02418-C

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Wright, Justice Lang, and Justice Brown

Opinion by Justice Brown

Stating that all matters in controversy between the parties have been settled, appellant has 

filed a motion to dismiss the appeal with prejudice. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). We grant the 

motion to the extent we dismiss the appeal. See id., 43.2(f). 

151323F.P05

/Ada Brown/

ADA BROWN

JUSTICE
–2–

Court of Appeals

S

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

JAMES L. ROSS, Appellant

No. 05-15-01323-CV V.

JAMES S. BELL, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law 

No. 3, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-15-02418-C.

Opinion delivered by Justice Brown. Chief 

Justice Wright and Justice Lang 

participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal. 

Subject to any agreement between the parties, we ORDER appellee James S. Bell 

recover his costs, if any, of this appeal from appellant James L. Ross.

Judgment entered this 15th day of December, 2015.
#### Rainbow Venture Associates, L. P., Respondent, v Parc Vendome Associates, Ltd., et al., Defendants, and Board of Managers of Parc Vendome Condominium Corporation, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 478]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Stuart Cohen, J.), entered June 29, 1994, which granted plaintiffs motion to reargue and, upon reargument, granted, in part, plaintiffs motion for leave to commence a separate action to recover for physical damages to the mortgaged premises, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

RPAPL 1301 (3) precludes a mortgagee who has elected foreclosure from commencing a separate action on the mortgage debt, without leave of the court *(Marine Midland Bank v Lake Huntington Dev. Group,*185 AD2d 395, 396). Therefore, in those instances in which a party has obtained a final judgment in a foreclosure action, permission to institute a separate action on the debt will not be granted " 'unless special circumstances were shown which manifestly required that course’ ” *(Sanders v Palmer,*68 NY2d 180, 185). Here, plaintiff, in the event that it were to be barred from maintaining the proposed separate action for damages arising out of the purportedly negligent maintenance of the health club unit, would be effectively prevented from pursuing its claims, some of which are against parties not named in the foreclosure proceeding, because the Statute of Limitations would expire long before there is a foreclosure, a sale of the premises and a deficiency judgment. The position of defendant Board of Managers of the condominium corporation would enable alleged tortfeasors to escape any responsibility for their wrongs. In view of the extent of the alleged damage to the mortgaged property, the substantial size of the mortgage debt and the default by the owner of the property, defendant Parc Vendome Associates, it is highly unlikely that plaintiff would ever be able to collect on the deficiency judgment. A special circumstance exists where it appears improbable that the foreclosure will satisfy the mortgage debt *(201 Brook Realty Corp. v Merrill Assocs.,*192 AD2d 302).

*165It should also be noted that the foreclosure proceeding involves different questions of fact, law, and proof than does the proposed action *(see, Dollar Dry Dock Bank v Piping Rock Bldrs.,*181 AD2d 709).

We have considered defendant-appellant’s remaining contentions, including its argument that the IAS Court was not justified in granting plaintiff’s motion for reargument and/or renewal, and find them to be without merit. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Rubin and Williams, JJ.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-15-00030-CR

Triston Ray McDonald

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From the 371st District Court

of Tarrant County (1244269D)

October 29, 2015

Per Curiam

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of 

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

PER CURIAM
#### JACOB TELESH, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. CITY OF CLIFTON, *ETC., ET AL.,*DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS AND VINCENT CARABELLO, *ET AL.,*DEFENDANTS-PETITIONERS.

*Mr. Nicholas Martini*and *Mr. 8am Weiss*for the petitioners.

*Mr. Martin Klughaupt*for plaintiff-respondent.

May 16, 1967.

Denied.
Before the First Division,

April 19, 1945

No. 50131.

#### Protest 12951-K of J. E. Bieber (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

At the trial both of defendant’s witnesses admitted that the merchandise is a candlestick designed for electrical illumination-but maintained it is also a lamp base because it is drilled for wiring. Plaintiff conceded that all candlesticks designed for electrical illumination might be described as lamp bases, but contended that that would not exclude them from the more specific description of candlesticks designed for electrical illumination. Upon consideration of the testimony and an examination of exhibit 1 the merchandise was held properly dutiable at 30 percent under paragraph 218 (c), as modified. The protest was sustained to this extent.
March 8, 1950

No. 54118.

#### David L. Moss Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 847304-G, 849987-G, 870826-G, and 881241-G.

Abstract 53979. (Initial No. 138741-K.) Plaintiff’s application for rehearing granted.
CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002

I, Larry Taylor, certify that:

1.	I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of OBN
Holdings, Inc.

2.	Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain
any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a
material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light
of the circumstances under which such statements were made,
not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
quarterly report.

3.	Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this quarterly report,
fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
quarterly report.

4.	The registrant's other certifying officer and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure
controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-
15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we 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 and presented in this report our
conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures as of the  end of the period
covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c)	disclosed in this report any changes in the registrant's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred
during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrant's internal controls over financial
reporting.

5.	The registrant's other certifying officer and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal
control over financial reporting, to the registrant's
auditor's and the audit committee of registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

a)	all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal control over financial
reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and

b)	any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant role
in the registrant's internal control over financial
reporting.


Dated:  February 14, 2005


     By:  /s/Larry Taylor
          ------------------------
          Larry Taylor
          Chief Financial Officer
#### THE VARGIN.

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

March 13, 1911.)

No. 200.

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. This cause comes here upon appeal to review a decree awarding the libelant, as master of the German steamship Erika, $45,000 as salvage and $3,333.21 for expenses, with Interest and costs. Burlingham, Montgomery *&*Beecher (Charles C. Burlingham, of counsel), for appellant. Wheeler, Cortis & Haight (C. S. Haight, of counsel), for appellee.

Before LACOMBE, COXE, and WARD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

In our opinion, interest should not he added to the amount awarded by the court’s decision, intermediate the filing of the opinion and the entry of the decree, unless the delay in entering decree is attributable in some way to claimant, which does not appear to be the case here. Judge Hand’s opinion (180 Fed. 892) sets forth the facts with great fullness, and as appellant concedes with accuracy. Since we are satisfied with his reasoning imd concur in his conclusion, further discussion seems unnecessary. With the modification above suggested, the decree is affirmed, without costs of this appeal.
bdco_ex1048.htm


Exhibit 10.48




SECOND AMENDMENT TO PROMISSORY NOTE


 


This SECOND AMENDMENT TO PROMISSORY NOTE (the "Amendment7) by and between Lazarus Energy, LEG, a Delaware limited liability company (“Maker") and. John H. Kissick ("Payee") is made effective as of October 1, 2014 (the "Effective Date"). The Maker and the Payee shall be referenced individually as a "Party" and collectively and "Parties".


 


WHEREAS, the Maker and the Payee are Parties to that certain Promissory Note dated June 1, 2006, (as amended, restated, supplemented or otherwise modified from time to time in accordance with its provisions, the ("Note") to which reference is hereby made for all purposes; and


 


WHEREAS, the Parties hereto desire to amend the Note on the terms and subject to the conditions set forth herein.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and Ten and No/100 Dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows:


 


1. Definitions. Capitalized terms used and not defined in this Amendment shall have the respective meanings given them in the Note.


 


2. Amendments to the Note. The Note is hereby amended as follows:


 


(a) Interest Rate. The annual Interest Rate on Unpaid Balance shall be sixteen per cent (16.00%).


 


(b) Final Maturity. The Final Maturity shall be July 1, 2016.


 


3. Limited Effect. Except as expressly provided hereby, all of the terms and


provisions of the Note and the Deed of Trust are and shall remain in full force and effect and are hereby ratified and confirmed by the Maker. The amendments contained herein shall not be construed as a waiver or amendment of any other provision of Note or Deed of Trust or for any purpose except as expressly set forth herein or a consent to any further or future action on the part of the Maker that would require the waiver or consent of the Payee.


 


4. Successors and Assigns. This Amendment shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the Payee and Maker and each of their respective successors and assigns.


5.Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts,


 


all of which shall constitute one and the same agreement, and any Party hereto may execute this Amendment by signing and delivering one or more counterparts. Delivery of an executed counterpart of this Amendment electronically or by facsimile shall he effective as delivery of an original executed counterpart of this Amendment.


 


[Remainder of page intentionally left blank; signature page to follow]


 


 




  





  











  






IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of the Effective Date.








	
Lazarus Energy, LLC, as Maker


	  	  
	
By:

	
/s/JONATHAN P. CARROLL


	
Name:

	
Jonathan P. Carroll


	  	
President


	  	  
	
John H. Kissick, as Payee


	  	  
	
By:

	
/s/JOHN H. KISSICK


	
Name:

	
John H. Kissick
No. 41864.

Suit 4171.

#### Walter *T. Ueland, Quong Yuen Shing & Co.*v. *United States.*

T. D. 49348 affirmed.
ongrezi of tIji Unitii tatri 

The Honorable Lisa Jackson 

Administrator 

Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, D.C. 20460 

Dear Administrator Jackson, 

We are writing you regarding two major regulations EPA will soon propose that could have 

significant impacts on the nation's fuel manufacturers and the economy as a whole: Tier 3 fuel 

regulations and the Refinery Sector Rulemaking. We believe that reforms of this scope require a 

thorough analysis of potential long term implications on all affected industries before moving forward. 

Tier 3 would place stringent requirements on fuel manufacturers to reduce sulfur and vapor 

pressure. Our understanding is that EPA intends to propose this rule early next year and issue a final 

rule in 2012. Especially during this time of economic uncertainty, we have concerns about the effects 

this rule might have on the fuel manufacturing and other industries, the price of gas at the pump, and 

domestic fuel supplies. 

We also understand that EPA is moving forward on the Refinery Sector Rulemaking in 

December of 2011. This rulemaking is perhaps the most comprehensive and complex mix of new 

mandates and standards ever developed for the refinery sector. In light of the potential impact of rules 

like these, we suggest that the issuance of an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking would allow 

affected industries a better opportunity to provide feedback and give EPA more time to analyze the 

data submitted by those industries in advance of rulemaking. 

With any rules, we expect a thorough analysis of the science, as well as costs and benefits to 

the general public and affected industries before proceeding. We believe both federal and state 

regulators should be held to that standard. We urge EPA to coordinate with states to pursue a rigorous 

science-based rulemaking process that minimizes the unnecessary, negative consequences for affected 

industries, 

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter, and we look forward to your timely 

response. 

Representative Ed Whitfield - Repres1ative JôftTBarkw 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
0.. M442-

1jsentative Robert Aderholt Representative Rodney nder 

Rpresentative Joe Barton 

Representative Dan Boren 

yc4icháèl Bufesf Representative fan Burton 

Representative Lou Barletta

Representative Leonard Boswell epreseiitative Charles 
Representathk Mark Critz 

Representative Bill Flores 

JAJ4W21 

Representative aft Jones 

Representative Char! 

tative Andy Harris 

Rep'tèsetive Lynn Thhkins

Representative Gene Green 

tative Tim Holden 

ntative Cynthia Uimmis
R&Iresentatve Jfri Matheson 

entative David McKinley 

Representative Patrick Meehan 

Representative Nunne1ee 

Representativ Stevan Pearce 

presentative James Sensenbrenner 

Representative Lamar Smith

Representative Pete Olson 

Representative Tim Murphy 

Rpreentative Mike Ross 

Representative David Schweikèrt 

Ree±ioShimk 

Rc:pFesen911wd^^S^

epresentative Tom McClintock 

Representative Cathy McMcfrris R1gers 

Representative Joe Pitts 
Representative Ste\'e Stiv 

Represlntative Rob Woodall Rjresenitive Mike Poilipeo
No. 54133.

#### W. A. Taylor & Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 131919-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Eicwall, J.

For the reasons stated in *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.