alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.5

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C.§1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Campbell/Graham/Tiverton Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund on Form
10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned hereby certifies, to the best of his knowledge:



| | (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 Campbell/Graham/Tiverton Series.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                                                                                                           
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Robert J. Enck                                                                                                                                         
|Robert J. Enck                                                                                                                                             
|President and Chief Executive Officer of Equinox Fund Management, LLC, the Managing Owner of Campbell/Graham/Tiverton Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund
|                                                                                                                                                           
|/s/ Brent Bales                                                                                                                                            
|Brent Bales                                                                                                                                                
|Chief Financial Officer of Equinox Fund Management, LLC, the Managing Owner of Campbell/Graham/Tiverton Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund              

Date: November 7, 2008
No. 47460.

#### Protests 807462-G, etc., of Abels Wasserberg & Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keife, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
No. 54159.

#### Foss & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 129413-K (Boston).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protest.
EXHIBIT 4.11

                                 PROMISSORY NOTE

$12,400.97                                                  Date:  April 3, 2001

For value received, the undersigned  MariCulture Systems, Inc. (the "Borrower"),
at PO Box 968, Lake Stevens, Washington 98258-0968, promises to pay to the order
of Elaine  Louise  Meilahn,  (the  "Lender"),  at 7219 196th  Street  SW,  #C-3,
Lynnwood,  Washington  98036-4402,  (or at such  other  place as the  Lender may
designate in writing) the sum of $12,400.97 with interest calculated  separately
on the unpaid principal of each individual loan dating from each individual date
of inception, at the rate of 12.00% per annum.

The  individual  loans  that have  been made to the  Borrower  are  itemized  as
follows:

         $1,500.00 on 02/12/95.
         $2,765.00 on 11/17/97.
         $2,000.00 on 11/26/97.
         $  660.00 on 02/23/98.
         $2,475.97 on 03/10/98.
         $2,000.00 on 01/04/00.
         $1,000.00 on 01/28/00.

The unpaid principal and accrued interest shall be payable in full on any future
date on which the Lender demands repayment (the "Due Date").

All payments on this Note shall be applied first in payment of accrued  interest
and any remainder in payment of principal.

The Borrower  reserves the right to prepay this Note (in whole or in part) prior
to the Due Date with no prepayment penalty.

If any payment  obligation  under this Note is not paid when due,  the  Borrower
promises to pay all costs of  collection,  including  reasonable  attorney fees,
whether or not a lawsuit is commenced as part of the collection process.

If any  one or  more  of the  provisions  of  this  Note  are  determined  to be
unenforceable,  in whole or in part,  for any reason,  the remaining  provisions
shall remain fully operative.

All payments of  principal  and interest on this Note shall be paid in the legal
currency of the United  States.  The Borrower  waives  presentment  for payment,
protest, and notice of protest and nonpayment of this Note.

No renewal or extension of this Note, delay in enforcing any right of the Lender
under this Note, or assignment by Lender of this Note shall affect the liability
or the obligations of the Borrower. All rights of the Lender under this Note are
cumulative and may be exercised  concurrently or  consecutively  at the Lender's
option.

This  Note  shall be  construed  in  accordance  with  the laws of the  State of
Washington.

Signed this   _3rd_   day of   _April_  , _2001_ , at     _Lake Stevens_ , _WA_

Borrower:
MariCulture Systems, Inc.


By: /s/ David E.  Meilahn
------------------------------------------
     President
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-10949

Conference Calendar

 

WILLIE ED CRAFT,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

DAVID EDGEWORTH, Medical Doctor; DAVID

WILLIAMS, Sheriff; TARRANT COUNTY 

HOSPITAL DISTRICT,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:96-CV-465-A

- - - - - - - - - -

December 10, 1996

Before WIENER, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Willie Ed Craft, #0028433, appeals from the district court’s

dismissal as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) of his

civil rights complaint. Craft contends that he stated a valid

claim of deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. 

We have reviewed the record and Craft’s brief and conclude that

his appeal is frivolous. We caution Craft that any additional
No. 96-10949

- 2 -

frivolous appeals filed by him or on his behalf will invite the

imposition of sanctions. To avoid sanctions, Craft is further

cautioned to review any pending appeals to ensure that they do

not raise arguments that are frivolous.

Craft’s motions for copies of his medical records and for

return of his copy of his appellate brief are DENIED.

APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.
#### Meakin & Ridgway, Inc. *v.*United States

No. 7481.

Entry No. 734870.

Invoice dated Birmingham, England, December 1945.

Entered at New York, N. Y., January 24, 1946.

(Decided December 17, 1947)

*Benjamin A. Levett*for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Johnson, Judge:

This proceeding has been submitted upon a stipulation wherein the parties hereto have agreed that the issues involved in this reappraisement are the same in all material respects as in the case of *United States*v. *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.,*33 C. C. P. A. 183, C. A. D. 334. The record in that case was admitted as part of the record herein.

In view of the aforesaid stipulation and accepting same as a statement of fact, and in view of the decision cited, I find and hold that the export value of the merchandise is the value found by the appraiser, less any additions on entry by the importer by reason of advances by the appraiser in similar cases to equal the British purchase tax, so-called.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
1

United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit 

No. 16-1146 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Appellee, 

 v. 

BRIAN T. MULKERN, 

 Defendant, Appellant. 

ERRATA SHEET 

The opinion for this Court issued April 14, 2017 is amended 

as follows: 

On page 14, line 20, change "did not pled guilty" to "did not 

plead guilty"
EXHIBIT 10.14











Termination Agreement


Party A:                                Penglai XinGuan Investment Ltd.
  Party B:                                Jinhai Mine Underground Engineering Limited
 
 
 
 After friendly negotiation, Party A and Party B have concluded that it would be in their mutual best interests to terminate the Construction Project Agreement concerning the mining project at Dazhaojia mining area, effective from November 1, 2010. Accordingly, both parties shall be relieved from any and all rights and obligations arising out of or relating to the Construction Project Agreement.
  This Agreement is in duplicate, of which one copy for each party.
   PARTY A:
Penglai XinGuan Investment LimitedName of Authorized agent: Wenge Liu (signed and sealed)/s/ Wenge LiuPARTY B:
Jinhai Mine Underground Engineering LimitedName of authorized agent: Yong Wang (signed and sealed)/s/ Yong WangDate
September 30, 2010
(Reap. Dec. 9189)

#### H. Elkan & Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 5489.

(Decided July 11, 1958)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

*488WxlsoN, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the attorneys for the respective parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, that the merchandise embraced in the Appeal to Reappraisement enumerated above consists of Quebracho extract which was manufactured in Argentina and shipped through Holland to the United States the same in all material respects to the merchandise involved in the case of *W. R. Zanes & Company, et al.*v. *United States,*Reap-praisement Decision 9062, dated January 29, 1958, and involving the identical issues.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the export value at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported in the usual wholesale quantity and in the ordinary course of trade for export to the United States as defined in Section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 was equal to the entered unit value and that the foreign market value for said merchandise did not exceed export value.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED between the parties hereto that the record in Reappraisement Decision 9062 be incorporated and made a part of the record in the Appeal to Reappraisement enumerated above and that the appeal be deemed submitted on this stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such value was the entered unit value.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
#### Ware *v.*State.

In Banc.

Oct. 11, 1948.

(37 So. (2d) 18)

*108Harry K. Murray, for appellant.

*109George H. Ethridge, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

*110Griffith, C. J.

Appellant was indicted and convicted on the charge of attempted rape. The version given by the two State’s witnesses, who claimed to be eyewitnesses, borders so nearly upon the incredible that it may be declared as highly probable that there would have been no conviction except for the testimony now to be mentioned.

 A character witness was introduce^ by the appellant, and on cross-examination it was sought to be proved by the State that the witness had offered twenty-five dollars to the father and mother of the alleged victim if they would withdraw the prosecution. The witness *111flatly denied that he made any such offer. The mother was then put on the stand in rebuttal, who testified that the witness aforementioned did make the offer and that the witness said further that he did so after talking with appellant in the jail, to all of which appellant objected, but was overruled.

It is thus seen that the only testimony that appellant had any connection with the offer, or that an offer was authorized by him, was in the hearsay averment that the character witness had so stated to the mother.  Obviously, an offer of compromise to be admissible must have been made by the accused himself or by someone actually authorized by him to make it. State v. Sutcliffe, 159 La. 305, 105 So. 352; State v. Goode, 185 N. C. 737, 117 S. E. 337; Yoder v. State, 66 Okl. Cr. 178, 90 P. (2d) 669. It is not contended that the accused himself made the offer, and it is not proved that he authorized it.

Reversed and remanded.
Exhibit 10.5







Directors' Compensation







All non-employee directors of The Old Point National Bank of Phoebus (the Bank) and Old Point Trust & Financial Services, N.A. (the Trust Company) receive $400 and $250, respectively, for each board meeting they attend. The non-employee directors of the Bank and Trust Company receive $150 for each committee meeting they attend except for the Bank's Investment Committee meetings for which members receive $100 for attendance and the Bank's Director Loan Committee and the Bank's Director Loan Review Committee meetings for which members receive $200 for attendance.







In addition, non-employee directors of the Bank and Trust Company are paid an annual retainer fee of $8,000 and $3,000, respectively, except that directors serving on the Bank Board who also serve on the Trust Company Board receive an additional $1,000 instead of $3,000 annual retainer for serving on the Trust Company Board. In addition, the Chairman of the Audit Committee of the Company Board and the chairman of the Trust Company Board each receive an additional $2,000 annual retainer, and the chairman of the Directors Loan Committee and the Chairman of the Directors Loan Review Committee each receive an additional $1,000 retainer.







All directors of Old Point Financial Corporation (the Company) have been elected as directors of the Bank, but there is no assurance that this practice will continue. However, not all Company directors serve as directors of the Trust Company. There are no additional fees paid for being a Company director.







The Company also pays for all directors and their spouses to attend regular director seminars.







Non-employee directors were eligible to receive awards of non-qualified stock options under the Company's 1998 Stock Option Plan; however, the 1998 Stock Option Plan expired in 2008, and no further awards may be granted under the plan.
**Exhibit      32(b)**

**TEXAS      COMPETITIVE ELECTRIC HOLDINGS COMPANY LLC**

**Certificate      Pursuant to Section 906**

**of      Sarbanes – Oxley Act of 2002**

**CERTIFICATION      OF CFO**

|   | 1. | The                Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2007                (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. | Information                contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,                the                financial condition and results of operation of the                Company. |
|--------|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |   | /s/                David A.                Campbell                                |   |
|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Name:  | David                A.                Campbell                                    |   |
|   | Title: | Executive                Vice President and                Chief Financial Officer |   |
# 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 Gryphon Gold Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period
ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Michael K. Longinotti, 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.
| | --- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Date:  August 11, 2006 | By:   /s/ Michael K. Longinotti     
        _____________________________
               Michael K. Longinotti        
        Chief Financial Officer
|---------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---
Case: 2:10-cv-00967-EAS-TPK Doc #: 28 Filed: 05/04/11 Page: 1 of 4  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-00967-EAS-TPK Doc #: 28 Filed: 05/04/11 Page: 2 of 4  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-00967-EAS-TPK Doc #: 28 Filed: 05/04/11 Page: 3 of 4  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-00967-EAS-TPK Doc #: 28 Filed: 05/04/11 Page: 4 of 4  PAGEID #: <pageID>

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2015-05-07T16:15:07-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
```

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 60 (Thursday, March 29, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 14786]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-5760]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ES07-21-000]

Entergy Nuclear Palisades, LLC; Notice of Filing

March 23, 2007.
    Take notice that on March 21, 2007, Entergy Services, Inc. as agent 
for its affiliate Entergy Nuclear Palisades, LLC (collectively, Entergy 
Palisades) applied to the Commission under section 204 of the Federal 
Power Act to issue and sell equity securities and long-term and short-
term debt securities up to a limit of a total of $500 million during 
the period beginning on the date Entergy Palisades becomes a public 
utility.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or 
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to 
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible online at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
[email protected], or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. eastern time on April 2, 2007.

Philis J. Posey,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-5760 Filed 3-28-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
```
#### Jacob P. Stocksdale, Resp’t, *v.*Walter G. Schuyler, Survivor, App’lt.

*(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,*

*Filed February 10, 1890.)*

■ Contract—Rescission.

Plaintiff agreed to deliver to defendant’s firm a large amount of lumber, they to pay freight on each invoice and give note for the balance. Several invoices having been delivered, plaintiff demanded payment of the balance due thereon, but defendant refused to give a note for past deliveries. *Held,*that such refusal gave plaintiff a right to rescind the contract and demand payment for the goods delivered.

*381Appeal from judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon verdict directed by the court.

Action to recover a balance due upon lumber sold and delivered to defendants.

*Brown, Dexter & Squires,*for app’lt; *Wm. P. Rhodes,*for resp’t.

Barnard, P. J.

The facts are not disputed in this case. The plaintiff agreed to deliver a large amount of lumber. The defendants were to pay the freight on each invoice and give a note upon three months’ credit for the balance. There were several invoices delivered and neither freight was paid nor note given. There were subsequent deliveries on account of the contract when the freight was paid by defendants, but no note given. Payments were made on account to the extent of $1,231.43. In March, 1887, the plaintiff demanded payment of the balance and refused to execute the contract further unless a settlement was made according to the terms of the contract The defendants declined to give a note for the balance on past deliveries and claim that the plaintiff must fulfill the entire contract and can only claim payment of freight and a note for further deliveries. Can the plaintiff rescind the contract for a failure to pay or give a note for past deliveries ? The case of *Gardner*v. *Clark,*21 N. Y., 399, holds that a waiver of payments for past deliveries did not waive the right of payment as to future ones. It does not meet the present case. Assuming a waiver of the conditions and that the title passed, it was clearly the right of the plaintiff to demand the note and his right to that or the cash only depended upon a demand for a performance of the conditions.

The refusal to give the note was proven, and this refusal gave the plaintiff a right to rescind the contract and demand his money for the goods sold and delivered.

The performance of the contract by the plaintiff presupposed the giving of the several notes as invoices were delivered, and this fact brings the present case under *Mansfield*v. *N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co.,*102 N. Y., 211; 1 N. Y. State Rep., 390; *Graf v. Cunningham,*109 N. Y., 369; 15 N. Y. State Rep., 524; *Withers*v. *Reynolds,*2 Barn. & Adol., 882.

The judgment should therefore be affirmed, with costs.

Dykman, J., concurs.