alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 99.1


                           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 Annual Report of Coates International, Ltd. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2003 (the "Form
10-KSB"), I, George J. Coates, Chief Executive Officer and the Principal
Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, as of the date hereof, 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, that the Company's Form 10-KSB
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 Form 10-KSB,
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.


Dated:  April 15, 2004       COATES INTERNATIONAL, LTD.

                             By: /s/ George J. Coates
                                -------------------------------------
                                 President, Chief Executive Officer
                                 and Principal Accounting Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael Paulk, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Rensselaer County (Ceresia Jr., J.), rendered *1029January 16, 1990, convicting defendant upon his pleas of guilty of the crimes of assault in the second degree, criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (five counts), burglary in the third degree, petit larceny and attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.

At the time of defendant’s sentencing, the terms of imprisonment imposed with respect to his first plea of guilty to the crimes of assault in the second degree, burglary in the third degree, petit larceny and five counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree were made to run concurrently, with the harshest being 5 to 15 years. As to his second plea of guilty to the crime of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, he received a 1-to 3-year prison term to be served consecutively to the 5- to 15-year term. This resulted in defendant receiving a total aggregate term of 6 to 18 years. Given that the sentences imposed were within the statutory guidelines and were the sentences agreed upon during the plea proceedings, we reject defendant’s assertion that they were harsh or excessive *(see, People v Phelps,*140 AD2d 637, *lv denied*72 NY2d 922).

Judgment affirmed. Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Weiss, Yesawich, Jr., and Harvey, JJ., concur.
#### Donald Lee FENTER, Appellant, v. STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.

No. F-82-483.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

Jan. 28, 1985.

*13W.B. Ward, Jr., Ada, for appellant.

Michael C. Turpén, Atty. Gen., Hugh A. Manning, Asst. Atty. Gen., Oklahoma City, for appellee.

OPINION

PARKS, Presiding Judge:

Donald Lee Fenter was convicted in the District Court of Pontotoc County of Unlawful Possession of Marijuana With Intent to Distribute, Case No. CRF-81-86, and Feloniously Carrying a Firearm, Case No. CRF-81-87, and sentenced to three (3) years imprisonment in Case No. CRF-81-86, and five (5) years imprisonment in Case No. CRF-81-87, the sentences to run concurrently. These cases were consolidated for appeal.

In Case No. CRF-81-86, appellant did not present any argument or authority. We affirm.

In Case No. CRF-81-87, appellant raises a single assignment of error. Appellant contends since his prior conviction had been completed more than ten years prior to the commission of the instant offense, 21 O.S. 1981, § 51A, bars the use of his prior conviction. This proposition is not well taken.

Simply stated, appellant had a sawed off 410 shotgun in his possession, and he had a prior felony conviction. 21 O.S.1981, § 1283.

The provisions of Section 51A, *supra,*do not expressly repeal the provisions of 21 O.S.1981, § 1283, and a repeal by implication may be found only when two statutes are so inconsistent that they may not stand. There are no inconsistencies between the provisions of Sections 1283 and 51A. Section 51A does not define a crime, but relates only to the enhancement of punishment. See *Simmons v. State,*549 P.2d 111 (Okl.Cr.1976). The provisions of Section 1283, however, do not enhance punishment of an existing criminal offense, but defines a separate distinct offense. *Smith v. State,*651 P.2d 1067 (Okl.Cr.1982). It is this offense of which appellant was convicted and sentenced.

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the judgment and sentence is AFFIRMED.

BRETT and BUSSEY, JJ„ concur.
Exhibit
10.1


December 27, 2006


Greg Miller


Chief Financial
Officer


WJ Communications,
Inc.


401 River Oaks
Parkway


San Jose, CA 95134


408.577.6261


RE: WJ
Communications, Inc (“Borrower”)


Obligor Number
8535758384


30-day extension


Dear Mr. Miller:


Comerica Bank (the “Bank”) has approved the extension
of the maturity date of the above referenced credit facility as evidenced by
that certain note/agreement, dated December 22, 2005 (as such may be amended,
restated, modified, supplemented or revised from time to time, the “Agreement”)
from December 21, 2006 to January 21, 2007. Upon your execution of a
counterpart of this letter, the maturity date shall be so amended.


The Agreement, as modified and amended hereby, shall
be and remain in full force and effect in accordance with its respective terms
and hereby is ratified and confirmed in all respects. Except as expressly set
forth herein, the execution, delivery, and performance of this modification and
amendment shall not operate as a waiver of, or as an amendment of, any right,
power, or remedy of Bank under the Agreement, as in effect prior to the date
hereof. Borrower ratifies and reaffirms the continuing effectiveness of all
promissory notes, guaranties, security agreements, mortgages, deeds of trust,
environmental agreements, and all other instruments, documents and agreements
entered into in connection with the Agreement.


By execution of a counterpart of this letter, Borrower
further represents and warrants that the representations and warranties
contained in the Agreement are true and correct as of the date hereof, and that
no event of default has occurred and is continuing under the Agreement or any
other document, instrument or agreement entered into in connection therewith.


Sincerely,


Comerica Bank


	
  By:

  	
   /s/ Guy Simpson

  	
   

  
	
  Guy Simpson

  
	
  Vice President

  



 


	
  Acknowledged and accepted on December 31, 2006

  
	
   

  
	
  WJ Communications, Inc.

  
	
  By:

  	
   /s/ R.
  Gregory Miller

  	
   

  
	
  R. Gregory Miller

  
	
  Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                      SUBSIDIARIES OF CHECKFREE CORPORATION

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
NAME                                           JURISDICTION OF ORGANIZATION
----                                           ----------------------------
<S>                                            <C>
CheckFree Services Corporation                 Delaware
Bastogne, Inc.                                 Nevada
CheckFree Receivables Corporation              Nevada
CheckFree Investment Corporation               Nevada
CheckFree i-Solutions, Inc.                    Delaware
CheckFree i-Solutions Corp.                    Ontario, Canada
CheckFree i-Solutions Limited                  United Kingdom
CheckFree Software & Services (UK), Ltd.       United Kingdom
Heliograph, Ltd.                               United Kingdom
Heliograph Inc.                                Delaware
Accurate Software Limited                      United Kingdom
Accurate Software Inc.                         Georgia
Accurate Software S.A.                         Luxembourg
Accurate Software (Australia) PTY Limited      Australia
American Payment Holdco, Inc.                  Delaware
American Payment Systems, Inc.                 Connecticut
American Payment Systems of California, Inc.   California
American Payment Systems of New York, Inc.     New York
</TABLE>
#### Laurie A. Zablocki, Appellant, v Gregg Straley et al., Respondents.

Yesawich, Jr., J.

Appeal (transferred to this court by order of the Appellate Division, Second Department) from an order of the Supreme Court (Benson, J.), entered March 30, 1989 in Dutchess County, which denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate a default judgment entered against her.

The order should be reversed. Plaintiff demonstrated both a meritorious claim and a reasonable excuse for her failure to timely serve her complaint (CPLR 5015 [a] [1]). Plaintiff’s claim obviously has merit. Her affidavit discloses that while a passenger in a motor vehicle owned by defendant Gregg Straley, she sustained serious physical injury when the car *1016left the road and struck a utility pole; she avers further that the driver, defendant Alan Straley, lost control of the vehicle. And the accompanying medical records suggest that she suffered a serious injury, "an anterior-superior corner-type compression fracture of L3”.

Plaintiffs counsel represents that a substantial settlement offer ($21,500 on a policy having a limit of $25,000), which defendants’ insurer concededly made, had been conditionally accepted pending receipt of assurance from the insurance carrier’s representative that there was no other insurance coverage available. Believing that a tentative settlement had been reached, plaintiffs counsel, who had previously served only a bare summons, did not serve a timely complaint. While the more prudent course would have been for plaintiff to have responded to defendants’ subsequent motion to dismiss, the record lends plausibility to plaintiffs assertion that failure to serve the complaint was due to counsel’s apparent conviction that for all intents and purposes a settlement had been obtained *(compare, Fiato v Buscema,*122 AD2d 335).

In view of the comparatively brief delay, four months, the lack of any intention on plaintiffs part to default, the failure of defendants to demonstrate any prejudice attributable to the delay and the policy preference for resolving claims on their merits, plaintiff’s untimeliness should have been excused. Because of the added expense and inconvenience defendants necessarily experienced because of the conduct , of plaintiff’s counsel, however, $1,000 in monetary sanctions should be imposed *(see, Davies v Contel of N. Y.,*155 AD2d 809, 810-811; *Matter of Harley v Assessor of Town of Hoosick,*121 AD2d 776, 777; *Gabrelian v Gabrelian,*108 AD2d 445, 447, *appeal dismissed*66 NY2d 741).

Order reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, motion granted and default judgment entered against plaintiff vacated on condition that plaintiff pay defendants $1,000 simultaneously with the service of the complaint. Weiss, J. P., Yesawich, Jr., Levine, Mercure and Harvey, JJ., concur.
**MPD** IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 2 2 - 0238 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee , v. JOSEPH BRIAN MCELROY ,

Defendant and Appellant .

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30 - day extension of time, and good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is gran ted an extension of time to and including January 2 9 , 202 4 , within which to prepare, file, and serve its response brief.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

December 20 2023

12/20/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0238
**Exhibit
      32.1**





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


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


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**








Each
      of
      the undersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity as an officer of China
      Medicine Corporation (the “Company”), for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section
      1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that
      to the best of his knowledge:





(1)  The
      Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter ended March 31,
      2007 (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.





Dated:
      May 15, 2007





/s/
      Senshan Yang


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


Senshan
      Yang


Chief
      Executive Officer


(principal
      executive officer)








/s/
      Huizhen Yu


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


Huizhen
      Yu


Chief
      Financial Officer


(principal
      financial officer and accounting officer)





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
      and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
## Aircraft Maintenance Logbook Owner/Operator:Southern Business Services LLC.

Manufacturer: DJI Model: S1000+ Date Put into Service:__06/23/2015________________

Date Tech. Remarks Serial Number Firmware
BK Airframe: 03P0010667 Landing Gear: 03Q0010436 Gimbal: 00A0013080/0180377394 Gimbal Control Unit (GCU): 0070131110
A 2 Main Controller (MC): 01R0045768
A 2 IMU: 0210072702
A 2 GPS: 01T0066367
A 2 LED: 01J0094232 A2 PMU: 01S0042052 iOSD: 0190542736 Arm Red CW : 03R0014502 Arm Red CCW: 03R0014511 Arm Green CW: 03R0014737 Arm Green CCW: 03R0014308 Arm Green CW: 03R0014762 Arm Green CCW: 03R0014318 Arm Green CW: 03R0014751 Arm Green CCW: 03R0014305Date Tech Remarks Serial Number Firmware

Datalink Air Unit: Ground Unit: 01Y0064786 01X0064786 Video Transmitter: 00C0214294 Video Receiver: N/A Lightbridge Air Unit: Main Controller: Decoder: Transmitter: Air Unit Serial #2: N/A

Lightbridge Ground Unit: Main Controller: Encoder: Transmitter: N/A
COURT OF APPEALS

S E C O N D D I S T R I C T O F T E X A S

CHIEF JUSTICE

 TERRIE LIVINGSTON

JUSTICES

 LEE ANN DAUPHINOT

 ANNE GARDNER

 SUE WALKER

 BOB McCOY

 BILL MEIER

 LEE GABRIEL

TIM CURRY CRIMINAL JUSTICE CENTER

401 W. BELKNAP, SUITE 9000

FORT WORTH, TEXAS 76196

TEL: (817) 884-1900

FAX: (817) 884-1932

www.2ndcoa.courts.state.tx.us

CLERK 

 DEBRA SPISAK

CHIEF STAFF ATTORNEY

 LISA M. WEST

GENERAL COUNSEL

 CLARISSA HODGES

October 31, 2013

Robert Henry Tenorio

Law Office of Robert Tenorio

1340 S. Main St., Ste. 300

Grapevine, TX 76051-7512

Hon. Nancy L. Berger

Judge, 322nd District Court

Tarrant County Family Law Center

200 E. Weatherford St.

Fort Worth, TX 76102

Civil District Clerk, Tarrant County

Tim Curry Criminal Justice Center

401 W. Belknap St., 3rd Floor

Fort Worth, TX 76196

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Thomas M. Michel

Griffith, Jay & Michel, LLP

2200 Forest Park Blvd.

Fort Worth, TX 76110

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

RE: Court of Appeals Number: 02-13-00225-CV

Trial Court Case Number: 322-437948-08

Court of Appeals Number: 02-13-00226-CV

Trial Court Case Number: 322-526843-12

Style: In the Interest of Z.S.H. and T.S.H., children

Today the Second Court of Appeals issued an opinion and judgment in the

above-referenced causes. 

A copy of the opinion and judgment can be viewed on our Court’s

webpage at: http://www.2ndcoa.courts.state.tx.us/.

Respectfully yours,

DEBRA SPISAK, CLERK

FILE COPY
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23




            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No.
33-98440, 33-98442, 33-98444, 33-98446, 333-21795, 333-21799, 333-70599,
333-35812, 333-35814, 333-50322, 333-91490, 333-101280, 333-101284, 333-101881
and 333-109975 on Form S-8 and Registration Statement No. 333-50494 on Form S-3
of our report dated September 2, 2005, relating to the financial statements and
financial statement schedule of CheckFree Corporation (which report expresses
an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the
Company's change in its method of accounting for goodwill and other intangible
assets to conform with Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 142),
and our report dated September 2, 2005 relating to management's report on the
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting appearing in this
Annual Report on Form 10-K of CheckFree Corporation for the year ended June 30,
2005.


/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
Atlanta, Georgia
September 2, 2005
#### The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gary Dean SHEDD, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 84SA106.

Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc.

July 1, 1985.

James F. Smith, Dist. Atty., Steven L. Bernard, Chief Trial Deputy, Brighton, for plaintiff-appellant.

David F. Vela, Colorado State Public Defender, Shelley Gilman, Saskia A. Stephenson, Deputy State Public Defenders, Brighton, for defendant-appellee.

*268PER CURIAM.

The prosecution appeals an order of the Adams County District Court dismissing an information filed against the defendant, Gary Dean Shedd. We affirm.

The facts in this case are undisputed. On February 15, 1983, the prosecution filed an information charging the defendant with sexual assault on a child. § 18-3-405, 8 C.R.S. (1978). The information alleged that the defendant committed the sexual assault between September 1 and December 31, 1977. The defendant thereafter moved to dismiss the case, asserting that the three-year statute of limitations barred prosecution. § 16-5-401, 8 C.R.S. (1978). At the hearing on defendant’s motion to dismiss, the prosecution argued that in July of 1982 the Colorado General Assembly increased the period of limitations for sexual assault on a child from three years to ten years. §§ 16-5-401(6) & 18-3-411(2), 8 C.R.S. (1984 Supp.). The prosecution maintained that the new statute of limitations revived the court’s jurisdiction to hear the case. The district court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss. The court concluded that the three-year limitations period had expired prior to the enactment of section 16-5-401(6), and that the new ten-year statute of limitations did not revive the court’s jurisdiction to hear the case. We agree.

A case barred from prosecution by a statute of limitations cannot be revived by subsequent legislation that acts to extend the limitations period. *E.g., People v. Montera,*195 Colo. 118, 575 P.2d 1294, 1295, n. 3 (1978); *United States v. Richardson,*512 F.2d 105 (3d Cir.1975); *Falter v. United States,*23 F.2d 420 (2d Cir.1928); *People v. Liebling,*36 Ill.App.3d 1073, 344 N.E.2d 520 (1976); *Andrews v. State,*392 So.2d 270 (Fla.App.1980). Retroactive application of a statute of limitations to revive a previously barred prosecution violates the fundamental constitutional prohibition against *ex post facto*legislation.

The district court’s order dismissing the defendant’s case is therefore affirmed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v *643Vincent Harris, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jackson, J.), rendered June 13, 1988, convicting him of attempted grand larceny in the fourth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We disagree with the defendant’s contention that his right to be present during the impanelling of the jury was violated because of his absence from the sidebar conferences during which counsel advised the court of their peremptory challenges and made challenges for cause *(see, People v Velasco,*77 NY2d 469).

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Sullivan, J. P., Eiber, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.
EX-10.77


    Exhibit 10.77

     

    

      January
        9, 2007

      


      SmarTire
        Systems Inc.

      13151
        Vanier Place, Suite 150

      Richmond,
        British Columbia

      V6V
        2J1

      


      Re:
        Registration rights on financial instruments held by TAIB Bank, B.S.C. (“TAIB”),
        and Certain Wealth, Ltd (“Certain Wealth”).

      


      The
        following financial instruments are held by the entities identified
        below:

      


      
        	
                Date
                  of Instrument

              	
                Financial
                  Instrument

              	
                Amount

              	
                Held
                  by

              
	
                October
                  31, 2006

              	
                10%
                  convertible debenture

              	
                $1.0
                  million

              	
                TAIB

              
	
                October
                  31, 2006

              	
                10%
                  convertible debenture

              	
                $0.2
                  million

              	
                Certain
                  Wealth

              


      

      


      SmarTire
        Systems, Inc. is required pursuant to the registration rights agreement with
        TAIB and Certain Wealth to file a registration statement on Form SB-2 with
        the
        SEC on or before November 30, 2006. The registration statement was not filed
        on
        or before November 30, 2006 resulting in SmarTire Systems, Inc., being in
        non-compliance with the financial instruments above and all related agreements
        referenced therein (the “Financial Instruments”). 

      


      TAIB
        and
        Certain Wealth each hereby agree that an Event of Default (as defined in
        the
        applicable Financial Instrument) has not occurred as a result of the
        registration statement not being filed on or before November 30, 2006, and
        TAIB
        and Certain Wealth each hereby waive any and all of their rights under the
        applicable default provisions of the Financial Instruments and related
        agreements so long as such registration statement is filed on or before January
        10, 2007.

      


      Very
        truly yours,

      


      TAIB
        Bank, B.S.C.    Certain
        Wealth Ltd

      


      


      /s/
        Larry Chaleff                   
        /s/ Larry Chaleff

      By:
        Larry
        Chaleff      
   By:
        Larry
        Chaleff

      Its:      Its: