alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

            SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

      I, Jack L. Messman, Chief Executive Officer of Novell, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the "Company"), hereby certify that:

      (1)   The Company's periodic report on Form 10-K for the year ended
            October 31, 2004 (the "Form 10-K") fully complies with the
            requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
            1934, as amended; and

      (2)   The information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Company.

                                      * * *

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

/s/ Jack L. Messman
----------------------------
Jack L. Messman

Date: January 13, 2005
252 La. 179

#### LOUISIANA STATE BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS v. Jerry R. ENGLAND.

No. 49240.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 17, 1968.

In re: Jerry R. England applying for writs of prohibition, certiorari and mandamus.

The petition of the relator in the above entitled and numbered case having been duly considered,

It is ordered that a writ of certiorari issue herein, directing the Honorable G. William Swift, Jr., Judge of the Fourteenth Judicial District Court for the Parish of Calcasieu to transmit to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, on or before the 10th day of October, 1968, the record in duplicate, or a certified copy of the record in duplicate, of the proceedings complained of by the relator herein, to the end that the validity of said proceedings may be ascertained.

It is further ordered that the aforesaid Judge of said Court and the respondent through his attorneys shall show cause, in this court, on the date aforesaid, at 11 o’clock A. M., why the relief prayed for in the petition of the relator should not be granted.

It is further ordered that, in the meantime and until the further orders of this court all proceedings against the relator in said Fourteenth Judicial Court shall be stayed and suspended.

Writ granted with stay order.
Exhibit 10.71

       

  


   

     


  AMENDMENT NO. 1

    TO NON-VOTING COMMON STOCK PURCHASE WARRANT


   


  THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO NON-VOTING COMMON PURCHASE WARRANT (the “Amendment”), effective as of March 31, 2020, is by and
    between Kineta, Inc. (“Kineta”) and Whetstone Ventures, LLC (“Holder”).  All capitalized
    terms used and not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Warrant (as defined below).


   


  Kineta issued that certain Non-Voting Common Stock Warrant (NVCW-79) dated April 1, 2013 issued originally to Quayle Associates, LLC and subsequently transferred to Craig W. Philips on
    January 1, 2018, and subsequently transferred again to Holder on January 1, 2020 (the “Warrant”).  The parties mutually desire to amend the Warrant to extend the term thereof as set forth
    below.


   


  NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements of the parties herein contained and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which
    are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:


   


  1.          Amendment.  Section 5(a) (Termination) of the Warrant is hereby amended and restated in its entirety as follows:


   


  “(a) the tenth anniversary of the Date of Issuance set forth above (i.e., April 1, 2023);”


   


  2.          Miscellaneous.  Except as herein expressly amended or otherwise provided, each and every term, condition,
      warranty and provision of the Warrant (as amended) remains in full force and effect, and is hereby ratified, confirmed and approved by the parties hereto.  In the event of any conflict between the terms of the Warrant and this Amendment, the terms of
      this Amendment shall control.  This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which is deemed to be an original, and all of such counterparts constitutes one Warrant.  To facilitate execution and delivery of this Amendment, the
      parties may execute and exchange counterparts of the signature page by electronic mail.  This Amendment and all acts and transactions pursuant hereto and the rights and obligations of the parties hereto shall be governed, construed and interpreted in
      accordance with the laws of the State of Washington, without giving effect to principles of conflicts of law.


   


  [SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]


   


  

     


  
    
      


  

  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have duly executed this Amendment as of the date first written above.


   

   
   
    	Holder:

          	
             

          	KINETA, INC.

          
	 	 	 
	Whetstone Ventures, LCC	 	KINETA, INC. 

            
	
             

          	
             

          	
             

          	
             

          	
             

          
	
            By: 

            

          	
             /s/ Craig Philips  

            

          	
             

          	By:

          	/s/ Pauline Kenny  

          
	
             

          	Craig Philips, Manager	
             

          	
             

          	Pauline Kenny, General Counsel
COZEN

O'CONNOR

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

THE ARMY AND NAVY CLUB BUILDING SUITE 1 100 1627 I STREET, NW WASHINGTON, DC 20006-4007

202.912.4800 800.540.1355 202.912.4830 FAX www.cozen.com

Writer's Direct Dial

202.463.2513

September 2, 2010

VIA ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION

Docket DOT-OST-2010-0181

Docket Management Facility

U.S. Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E.

Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Docket DOT-OST-2010-0181 -Verification of Filing of Family Assistance Plan and

Passenger Manifest Plan for National Air Cargo Group, Inc. d/b/ a National Airlines

("National Airlines")

Dear Ms. Remo,

As required by Paragraph 4 of your Information Request dated August 30, 2010 ("the

Request"), this letter will verify that on September 2, 2010, National Airlines filed in Docket DOTOST-1996-1960 the required accident plan pursuant to the Aviation Disaster Family Assistance

Act of 1996 (as amended). The contact information of the firm that will assist National Airlines'

with communications in the event of an accident was redacted from the plan, and an unredacted

version was submitted to the National Transportation Safety Board under separate cover.

This letter also verify as required by Paragraph 5 of the Request that on September 2,

2010, National Airlines filed in Docket DOT-OST-1998-3305 a brief statement summarizing how

the carrier will collect passenger manifest information and transmit it to the Department of State

following an aviation disaster. An unredacted copy of this statement containing the required

contact information for a representative of National Airlines who will be available at any time a

covered flight segment is operated has been provided to the appropriate Department of

Transportation officials on a confidential basis under separate cover.

Please contact us with any questions.

Mark W. Atwood

Elizabeth J. Wadsworth

Attorneys for National Airlines

cc: Damon Walker, Office of Aviation Analysis
259 La. 908

#### STATE of Louisiana v. Freeman Earl COLLINS.

No. 51853.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 25, 1971.

In re: Freeman Earl Collins applying for writ of certiorari.

Application denied. The complaint of relator is without merit.
Exhibit 99.8





MANGOSOFT, INC. AND SUBSIDIARY



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with the accompanying Form 10-QSB of MangoSoft, Inc. (the Company) for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2003
(the Periodic Report), I, Dale Vincent, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my
knowledge and belief, that the Periodic Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|Dated: May 13, 2003 |  |  |  | MANGOSOFT, INC.                                                                                
|------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                   
|                    |  |  |  | /s/    DALE
VINCENT                                                                            
|                    |  |  |  | Dale Vincent President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)



22
#### TREASURE, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. WHITE STAR REALTY CO., and North Bay Village, a municipal corporation, Appellees.

No. 67-996.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Feb. 21, 1968.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10K AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-1997
<CASH>                                          12,101
<SECURITIES>                                     4,142
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,059
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,607
<INVENTORY>                                        567
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                26,705
<PP&E>                                          16,079
<DEPRECIATION>                                  10,258
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  33,214
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           20,047
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           28,698
<PREFERRED>                                        199
<COMMON>                                            81
<OTHER-SE>                                    (16,557)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    33,214
<SALES>                                         35,919
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                57,120
<CGS>                                            6,362
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   14,622
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                37,205
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   408
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  98
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,851
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,207
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,644
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,644
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .36
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .36
        

</TABLE>
#### Robert Dale McCORD, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-184.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 27, 1970.

Hughlan Long, Public Defender, and Alan S. Becker, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Melvin Grossman, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and BARK-DULL and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See: Ferrer v. State, Fla.App.1960, 117 So.2d 529; Urga v. State, Fla.App.1963, 155 So.2d 719.
#### C. Elliott THOMPSON, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JUSTISS-MEARS OIL COMPANY, INC., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 13368.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.

Aug. 29, 1977.

*1025Gaharan & Wilson by Joseph Wilson, Jena, for defendant-appellant.

Oliver & Wilson by William A. Hargiss, Monroe, for plaintiff-appellee.

Before BOLIN, C. J., and PRICE, HALL, MARVIN and JONES, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

A judgment was signed ordering a preliminary injunction May 12,1977, and notice of judgment was mailed May 12,1977. Appellant made a motion for appeal on May 19, 1977, but did not file an appeal bond until June 7, 1977, which was *not*timely. LSA-C.C.P. Art. 3612.

Appellant was notified of our probable lack of jurisdiction and did not respond to our order to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed.

At appellant’s cost, the appeal is DISMISSED.
Exhibit 10.13


 




FORFEITURE AGREEMENT


 


This Forfeiture Agreement (this “Agreement”)
is entered into as of March 25, 2021, by and between Aldel Investors LLC (the “Transferor”) and Aldel Financial Inc. (the
 “Transferee”).


 


RECITALS


 


WHEREAS, the Transferor desires to transfer 2,300,000
shares (the “Shares”) of common stock, $0.0001 par value, of the Transferee back to the Transferee for cancellation at no
cost.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto, for good and
valuable consideration which each party acknowledges the receipt of, hereby agree as follows:


 


	1. 	Transfer of the Shares.



 


The Transferor hereby transfers to the Transferee
the Shares, and the Transferee hereby cancels the Shares.


 


	2. 	Representations and Warranties of the Transferor.



 


The Transferor represents and warrants that it
has full legal capacity and authority to enter into the Agreement and to transfer the Shares to the Transferee hereunder, and is not bound
by any agreement, instrument or governmental order prohibiting such transfer. The Transferor also represents that it is transferring such
interests free and clear of all liens and encumbrances other than those created by the terms of the Transferee’s organizational
documents or imposed by applicable federal and state securities laws.


 


	3. 	Binding Effect.



 


This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure
to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective legal representatives, successors and assigns.


 


		4. 	Entire Agreement.



 


This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement
of the parties hereto.


 


		5. 	Governing Law.



 


This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of
the State of New York without regard to its conflict of laws principles.


 


		6. 	Modification.



 


This Agreement may not be amended or supplemented
at any time unless by a writing executed by the parties hereto.


 






     


     


    

 


		7. 	Headings.



 


The headings in this Agreement are solely for convenience
or reference and shall not affect its interpretation.


 


		8. 	Counterparts; Facsimile.



 


This Agreement may be executed in any number of
counterparts, each of which when so executed shall be deemed to be an original and all of which taken together shall constitute one and
the same instrument. This Agreement or any counterpart may be executed via facsimile or other electronic transmission, and any such executed
facsimile or electronic copy shall be treated as an original.


 


 


[The balance of this page is intentionally left
page.]








    	 	2	 



     


    

 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed
this Agreement as of the date first set forth above.


 


Transferor:


 


	 	Aldel Investors LLC
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	By:	 
	 	Name: 	Robert I. Kauffman 
	 	Title: 	Manager


 


Transferee:


 


	 	Aldel Financial Inc.
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	By: 	 
	 	Name: 	Robert I. Kauffman
	 	Title: 	Chief Executive Officer


 


 



    	 	3
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Video Display Corporation;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this 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 annual report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) 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 have:
 a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and
procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed
under our supervision, 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 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; andc)
    
    disclosed in this report any change in
the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred
during the registrants most recent
fiscal quarter (the registrants
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of
an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial
reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrants auditors and the audit committee of the 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; andb)
    
    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.
 Date:  June 13, 2008
    /s/ Ronald D. OrdwayRonald D. OrdwayChief Executive Officer
#### Fred McCLOUD, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-835.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 30, 1971.

Walter R. Talley, Public Defender, and Edwin T. Mulock, Asst. Public Defender, Bradenton, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Warren H. Petersen, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lakeland, for appellee.

PIERCE, Chief Judge.

Appellant Fred McCloud, Jr. appeals to this Court from a judgment of conviction for the offense of rape.

On June 16, 1970, McCloud was indicted for the offense of rape. Upon plea of not guilty, he was tried before a jury from September 30 to October 2, 1970, and on the latter date he was convicted with recommendation of mercy. On the same date he was thereupon adjudged guilty of the crime of rape and sentenced to a term of imprisonment in the State Prison. A direct appeal from said judgment brings the case here for review.

The local Public Defender, as his duly appointed counsel on this appeal, has assigned only three errors, viz: (1) that the verdict is contrary to law, (2) that it is contrary to the evidence, and (3) that it is contrary to the law and the evidence. We take it that such general assignments raise at best only the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict of conviction. We have carefully read and considered in its entirety the full transcript of evidence certified to this Court as a part of the record here. We find it amply supports and sustains the verdict of the jury and the judgment of the Court.

During the nighttime appellant McCloud went into the home of a widow who lived alone in Mount Dora, took a pistol away from her and proceeded to commit the offense of rape upon her person, all the while warning her to “keep quiet and there wouldn’t anything happen”. At the trial McCloud took the witness stand and acknowledged he had committed the offense charged. He stated that on the night in question, April 10th-llth, 1970, he had been to a beer joint drinking wine and also a “type of narcotic” for about three hours; that when he left there he went to a local *782packing company where he first tried unsuccessfully to break in the building; that he did steal a truck there and went riding around town for a while, after which he took the truck back to the plant; that he then tried to break in a 7-Eleven Store and also a Service Station, but was unsuccessful in both places; that he then went into the house where the widow lady lived by unlocking the front door; and that he got in bed and had intercourse with her. He admitted he knew it was “a bad crime” and that since he had been in prison he had “started reading the Bible and praying”.

Such in-Court confession was obviously sufficient to sustain the verdict. Indeed, the defendant was fortunate in getting the recommendation for mercy from the jury. The case should never have been appealed, especially where the cost must be borne by the County.

Affirmed.

LILES and MANN, JJ., concur.
#### Joseph GRIER, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Nos. 70-354, 70-673.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 8, 1970.

Pollack & Yocom, Louis F. Snetman, Miami, and Neale J. Poller, Miami Beach, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Jesse J. Mc-Crary, Jr., and Alan M. Medof, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellee.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Two informations were filed against the appellant charging him with two unrelated robberies. Separate trials were held which resulted in a conviction in each case.

The appellant has appealed from the judgment and sentence entered in both cases and they have been consolidated for the purpose of appeal.

In case No. 3,300 defendant contends that the trial court erred in permitting the in-court identification by one of the witnesses.

In case No. 3,198 defendant urges reversal on the grounds that the court erred in admitting into evidence a gun found in defendant’s automobile when he was arrested and by admitting into evidence photographic identification by one of the police officers.

We have carefully considered the appellant’s contentions in the light of the record, briefs, and arguments of counsel and have concluded that no harmful error has been demonstrated.

Therefore the judgments and sentences appealed are affirmed.

Affirmed.
#### David MELTZOR & Samuel Metloff, d/b/a Dade Plastering Co. v. HASKELL M. LIBERMAN, INC.

No. 38795.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 222 So.2d 495.