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



SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION



I, Paul R. Arena, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of i2 Telecom International, Inc. (the Company), do hereby certify in accordance with 18
U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



| | 1. | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A of the Company for the period ended March 31, 2005 (the Periodic Report) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. §§78m or 78o(d)); and
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: June 17, 2005



/s/ Paul R. ArenaPaul R. Arena,Chairman of the Board andChief Executive Officer
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Report on Form 10-Q of Investors FinancialServices Corp. (the “Company”) for the period ending September 30, 2005 asfiled on November 4, 2005 (the “Report”), I, Kevin J. Sheehan, Chairman andChief Executive Officer, hereby certify, pursuant to 18. U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, tomy knowledge:

 

1.               The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.               The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 

 
|       /s/ Kevin J.  Sheehan |   |   |
|-----------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
| Kevin J. Sheehan                                          |   |
| Chairman and                                              |   |
| Chief Executive Officer                                   |   |

 

November 4, 2005

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 hasbeen provided to Investors Financial Services Corp. and will be retained byInvestors Financial Services Corp. and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

 

In connection with the Report on Form 10-Q of Investors FinancialServices Corp. (the “Company”) for the period ending September 30, 2005 asfiled on November 4, 2005 (the “Report”), I, John N. Spinney, Jr., Senior VicePresident and Chief Financial Officer, hereby certify, pursuant to 18. U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that, to my knowledge:

 

1.               The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.               The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 

 
|       /s/ John N.  Spinney, Jr. |   |   |
|---------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
| John N. Spinney, Jr.                                          |   |
| Senior Vice President and                                     |   |
| Chief Financial Officer                                       |   |
|                                                          |   |
| November 4, 2005                                              |   |

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 hasbeen provided to Investors Financial Services Corp. and will be retained byInvestors Financial Services Corp. and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

----
|   | 1. | The      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the three months ended      March 31, 2010 (the “Periodic Report”) fully complies with the      requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of      1934 (15 U.S.C. §§78m or 78o(d));and |
|--------|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | The      information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of      the Company. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | By:    | /s/      Andrew  Berman       |
|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                    |
|   |   | Andrew  Berman                |
|   |   | Chief  Executive      Officer |
|   |   | (Principal      Executive Officer)      |

----
The DJI Phantom 3 manual is too large for upload to regulations.gov. Therefore, if interested,

please follow the link below to the assembly and operating manual for the sUAS. http://www.dji.com/product/phantom - 3 - pro/info#downloads
#### In the Matter of the Probate of the Will of Josef Lieber, Deceased.

Surrogate’s Court, New York County,

May 27, 1953.

*Jacob Hecht, Joseph G. Blum*and *Daniel Gersen*for Joseph Handler, contestant.

*Emil Weitsner*and *Joseph Levine*for Hedy Wegier, proponent.

Frankenthaler, S.

This is a motion under section 288 of the Civil Practice Act for an order requiring the proponent to produce for examination before trial “ all persons through whom the proponent intends to prove that the alleged last will and testament of the decedent dated June 5, 1947, was in existence on July 24, 1952, and could not therefore have been destroyed by the testator with the intention of revoking it.” The proponent has offered for probate a copy of the will of June 5,1947, claiming that it was in existence on July 24, 1952, and that thereafter and until August 17, 1952, the date of his death, the decedent was incompetent. The proponent asserts that he will establish a lack of testamentary capacity which would have prevented effective revocation of the will after the date on which its existence is asserted to be possible of proof. The proponent’s attorney has declined to divulge the names of the witnesses whose testimony he will employ to establish the truth of these allegations. The contestant has brought on this motion to compel the production of all such witnesses whose names he has not supplied because of the fact that they are unknown to him.

*210The contestant urges upon the court the existence of ‘ ‘ special circumstances ” sufficient under section 288 of the Civil Practice Act to allow the examination sought. He states that the witnesses who will be produced to establish the lack of testamentary capacity occupy a position analogous to that of subscribing witnesses in the usual case and points out that the examination of the subscribing witnesses would be allowed as a matter of course. He argues from this basis that the examination of these witnesses should be permitted in this case. No authority exists for the proposition that a litigant is entitled to an examination of all of the witnesses his adversary anticipates producing upon the trial, particularly where the former seeks a blanket examination of persons he is not able to identify. If such a ruling were followed it would require the allowance of an examination of all of the contestant’s witnesses in ordinary probate proceedings where lack of testamentary capacity is alleged. The argument that such a right exists is plainly fallacious. As this result is beyond the scope of the statute it follows that the present motion must be denied.

Submit order on notice.
Exhibit
10.15


 


FIRST
AMENDMENT TO


 


LICENSE,
FUNDING AND OPERATIONAL AGREEMENT


 


THIS
FIRST AMENDMENT (the “Amendment”) to the License, Funding and Operational Agreement between Mid-Atlantic BioTherapeutics,
Inc. (“Licensor”) and Curative Biotechnology, Inc. (“Licensee”) executed October 1, 2021 for a COVID-19 Vaccine
(the “Agreement”), is made by Licensor and Licensee,


 


WITNESSETH:


 


WHEREAS,
the Licensor and Licensee previously executed the Agreement; and


 


WHEREAS,
the Licensor and Licensee wish to amend the Agreement as set forth herein,


 


NOW,
THEREFORE, Licensor and Licensee amend the Agreement as follows:


 


	 	1.	Amendments
    to the Agreement. The following Sections of the Agreement are amended and restated as follows:


 


	 	a.	Section
    12 of the Agreement entitled “Term and Termination”, shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:


 


“Initial
Funding. Licensee shall provide Licensor $10,000,000 for the initial funding of the Project which is the subject of this Agreement
in a reasonable time frame to accomplish the initiation of the Project in a timely fashion.”


 


	 	2.	Additional
    Changes. All other provisions of this Agreement, including Sections 12.1, 12.2, 12.3 and 12.4 shall remain unchanged and in full
    force and effect except as is necessary to amend in order to effect the transactions contemplated herein, which such changes are
    hereby approved by all Parties.


 


	 	3.	Final
    Agreement. This Amendment represents the final agreement between the parties and may not be contradicted by evidence of prior,
    contemporaneous or subsequent oral agreements. There are no unwritten oral agreements between the parties.


 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Amendment this 31st day of December, 2021.


 


	LICENSOR	 	LICENSEE
	 	 	 
	Mid-Atlantic
    BioTherapeutics, Inc.	 	Curative
    Biotechnology, Inc.
	 	 	 
	 /s/ David Horn 	 	 /s/ Richard Garr 
	By:	David
    Horn, M.D.	 	Richard
    Garr
**Exhibit32.1**

 

**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 on Form 10-Q of InvestorsFinancial Services Corp. (the “Company’) for the period ending June 30, 2003 asfiled on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Kevin J. Sheehan, Chairman andChief Executive Officer, hereby certify, pursuant to 18. U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to myknowledge:

 

1.               The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.               The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/Kevin J.  Sheehan    |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| Kevin J. Sheehan        |
| Chairman and            |
| Chief Executive Officer |

 

August 11, 2003

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 hasbeen provided to Investors Financial Services Corp. and will be retained byInvestors Financial Services Corp. and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of InvestorsFinancial Services Corp. (the “Company’) for the period ending June 30, 2003 asfiled on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John N. Spinney, Jr., Senior VicePresident and Chief Financial Officer, hereby certify, pursuant to 18. U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that, to my knowledge:

 

1.               The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.               The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and result of operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/John N.  Spinney, Jr.  |   |
|---------------------------|--------|
| Senior Vice President and |
| Chief Financial Officer   |

 

August 11, 2003

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 hasbeen provided to Investors Financial Services Corp. and will be retained byInvestors Financial Services Corp. and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

----
Exhibit
10.1


 


AMENDMENT
TO INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR SERVICES AGREEMENT


 


THIS
SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR SERVICES AGREEMENT (this "Second Amendment") is made this
21 day of October, 2016
by and between Power Strategies, LLC ("PSL") and NanoFlex Power Corporation (the "Company").
All capitalized terms used in this Amendment and not otherwise defined in this Amendment shall have the respective meanings
ascribed to them in that certain Independent Contractor Services Agreement dated as of October 25, 2014 (the "Agreement")
and the First Amendment to the Independent Contractor Services Agreement dated as of November 4, 2015 (the "First
Amendment") between the parties.


 


AGREEMENT:


 


NOW,
THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereby
agree as follows:


 


1.           Modification
of Agreement.


 


1.1           Modification
of Paragraph 7: Fees for Services. Paragraph 7: Fees for Services shall be modified to also include the following language
after the first sentence in the paragraph after the sentence ending with "expenses).”: "Upon the Company's raising
not less than $6,000,000 in the aggregate from sales of its securities subsequent to the date of this Second Amendment (the "Triggering
Event"), PSL shall receive a monthly cash fee under this Agreement of $15,000 (the
"Monthly Fee") in lieu of the $1,500 per day fee (the "Daily
Fee") set forth in the Agreement such that upon the occurrence of the Triggering Event,
PSL shall no longer receive such Daily Fee and shall receive the Monthly Fee instead.


 


2.           Miscellaneous.
Except as amended pursuant to this Second Amendment, the Agreement (including the Schedules and Exhibits thereto) and the
First Amendment (including the Schedules and Exhibits thereto) remain in effect in all respects.


 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Second Amendment to Employment Agreement to be executed as of the date first
written above.


 


	NanoFlex Power Corporation	 	Power Strategies LLC
	 	 	 	 	 
	By:
    	/s/
    Dean L. Ledger	 	By:
    	/s/ J.
    Norman Allen
		Dean
    L. Ledger, CEO	 	 	J.
    Norman Allen, President
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         119,553
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  298,412
<ALLOWANCES>                                    25,666
<INVENTORY>                                     10,504
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,026,757
<PP&E>                                       2,425,859
<DEPRECIATION>                                 608,809
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,536,427
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          663,113
<BONDS>                                      1,806,482
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         37
<COMMON>                                        24,811
<OTHER-SE>                                     305,696
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,536,427
<SALES>                                         19,950
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               496,541
<CGS>                                           18,123
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  407,332
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 6,500
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              20,892
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (13,005)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (581)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (14,588)
<DISCONTINUED>                                (91,799)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (106,387)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    ($2.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  ($2.15)


</TABLE>
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 302

To provide that the flag of the United States should be displayed at halfstaff on all Government buildings on Peace Officers Memorial Day,

and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 5, 1993

Mr. PORTER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To provide that the flag of the United States should be

displayed at half-staff on all Government buildings on

Peace Officers Memorial Day, and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. DISPLAY OF FLAGS AT HALF STAFF.

4 (a) The first section of Public Law 87–726 (36

5 U.S.C. 167) is amended—

6 (1) by striking ‘‘(2)’’ and inserting ‘‘(3)’’;

7 (2) by inserting after clause (1) the following

8 new clause: ‘‘(2) directing the officials of the Gov9 ernment to display at half-staff the flag of the Unit-
2

•HR 302 IH

1 ed States on all Government buildings on such day,

2 as provided by section 3(m) of the Act of June 22,

3 1942 (Chapter 435; 56 Stat. 377; 36 U.S.C. 175),’’;

4 (3) by striking ‘‘(3)’’ and inserting ‘‘(4)’’; and

5 (4) by inserting in paragraph (4) ‘‘, including

6 the display at half-staff of the flag of the United

7 States’’ after ‘‘activities’’.

8 (b) Section 3(m) of the Act of June 22, 1942 (Chap9 ter 435; 56 Stat. 377; 36 U.S.C. 175) is amended by in10 serting ‘‘The flag shall be flown at half-staff on Peace Of11 ficers Memorial Day.’’ after ‘‘a Member of Congress.’’.

Æ
#### SUMMIT FIDELITY & SURETY COMPANY, an Ohio corporation, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-1002.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 5, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### J. W. ALLEN, Individually and d/b/a Allen Wholesale Supply, Appellant, v. SOUTHERN BELL TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, a corporation, Appellee.

No. S-277.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Nov. 20, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 12, 1973.

*635John Paul Howard, of Towers, Howard, Cowart & Bolling, Jacksonville, for appellant.

Harold B. Wahl, of Loftin & Wahl; Nathan H. Wilson, Jacksonville, and John A. Boykin, Jr., Atlanta, Ga., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant-plaintiff appeals from a summary final judgment entered in favor of appellee.

Appellant contracted with appellee-Southern Bell for advertising in the “yellow pages” section of its telephone directory. In printing the 1972-73 directory, ap-pellee erroneously inserted in one of appellant’s advertisements the telephone number and street address of appellant’s main competitor. Appellant instituted this action for compensatory and punitive damages alleging that the telephone company had willfully and maliciously changed the advertisement, or, in the alternate, the company’s conduct constituted gross negligence. The telephone company answered and moved for a summary judgment based on the deposition of appellant, certain affidavits, the contract between the parties, and particularly upon the following exculpatory clause:

> “6. The Telephone Company’s liability on account of errors in or omissions of such advertising shall in no event exceed the amount of charges for the advertising which was omitted or in which the error occurred in the then current directory issue and such liability shall be discharged by an abatement of the charges for the particular listing or advertising in which the omission or error occurred.”

The trial judge found that no issue of material fact existed and entered the judgment appealed.

Appellant primarily urges that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to gross negligence on the part of appellee and, therefore, the limitation of liability provision is without force and effect.

We have reviewed the record in this case giving to appellant the benefit of each factual circumstance, and at the most find the conduct of the telephone company in this affair constituted an unintentional mistake. The evidence simply does not ascend beyond that of simple negligence.

We cannot help but note that the telephone company is vested with an exclusive monopoly in the field of “yellow pages” advertisements. A customer has a Hob-son’s choice. Either sign the contract proffered by the telephone company or forego the opportunity of enticing potential customers to his establishment by “letting the yellow pages do the walking for you”. We specifically, by this opinion, forego any consideration as to the legality of the cited exculpatory clause in a suit where issue is joined on simple negligence, as appellant failed to raise this issue. We are compelled to affirm the judgment appealed.

RAWLS, C. J., WIGGINTON, J., and DREW, E. HARRIS, Associate Judge, concur.
#### In the Matter of Irving V. A. Huie et al., Constituting the Board of Water Supply of the City of New York, Petitioners, Relative to Acquiring Title to Real Property for and on Behalf of the City of New York, in Sullivan County, for the Purpose of Providing Additional Water for the City of New York. Hazel E. Rollins, Claimant.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Sullivan County,

October 31, 1953.

*William G. Birmingham*for claimant.

*Denis M. Hurley, Corporation Counsel (Theodore R. Lee*and *John H. McManus, Jr.,*of counsel), for petitioners.

Schiriok, J.

This is a motion to compel the City of New York to secure a determination by commissioners of appraisal of the compensation to be paid to the claimant for the taking of her property for water supply purposes.

Title to the claimant’s property was acquired by the city on October 14, 1947. No claim for compensation was made until May 13, 1952.

The statute pursuant to which the property was acquired provides as follows: “All claims of every name and nature under this article, except claims provided for under section K41-22.0, must be exhibited and presented to the commissioners of appraisal having jurisdiction of the same within the following periods of time: (a) in the case of real estate acquired in fee or in which an easement is acquired, within three years after title thereto shall have become vested in the city * * * In the case of real estate acquired in fee or in which an easement is acquired, every person neglecting or refusing to present a claim within such time shall be deemed to have surrendered his *946interest in such real estate or Ms claims for damages ^hereto, except so far as he may be entitled as an owner of, of person interested in the award, if any, made by the commissioners of appraisal. All other claims not exhibited and presented witMn the time above specified shall be forever barred.” (Administrative Code, § K41-18.0.)

The clear language of such statute dictates a denial of the motion *(Matter of Bensel,*163 App. Div. 537).

The statute is constitutional *(Rexford*v. *Knight,*11 N. Y. 308; see *Benedict*v. *State of New York,*120 N. Y. 228).

The motion is denied.