alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.3



|                 |  |                                                                          |  |                       
|---------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------ |  | ----------------------
|LOGO             |  | Four Oaks Place 1360 Post Oak Boulevard, Suite 2500 Houston, Texas 77056
|                
|                
|                 |  |                                                                         
|Principals       |  | Telephone:                                                               |  | (713) 850-9955        
|William B. Cline |  | Facsimile:                                                               |  | (713) 850-9966        
|Peter D. Gaffney |  | e-Mail:                                                                  |  | gcah@gaffney-cline.com



|                        |  |              
|----------------------- |  | -------------
|C107800/RMB/ralo/LT1320 |  | June 27, 2005



CONSENT OF GAFFNEY,
CLINE & ASSOCIATES, INC.



As independent reserve engineers for Repsol
YPF S.A., Gaffney, Cline & Associates, Inc. hereby confirms that it has granted and not withdrawn its consent to the incorporation of information derived from our reports entitled CRUDE OIL AND NATURAL GAS RESERVE AUDIT AND CERTIFICATION
EFFECTIVE DECEMBER 31, 2004- Prepared for REPSOL YPF  JANUARY 2005 (Argentina Non-Operated and New Discoveries), NATURAL GAS RESERVE AUDIT CERTIFICATION  SIPORORO FIELD, VENEZUELA  EFFECTIVE DECEMBER 31, 2004 and
Gas Reserve Audit of the Yucal Placer Block, Venezuela  Effective December 31, 2004 by reference in Section 2.2.1.1 Oil and Gas Reserves in Repsol YPF, S.A.s annual report on Form 20-F (the Form 20-F)
for the year ended December 31, 2004 and in the Supplementary Information on Oil and Gas Exploration and Production Activities (unaudited information) to the Consolidated Financial Statements included therein. Gaffney, Cline & Associates, Inc.
also consents to the references made in the Registration Statements Nos. 333-12254 and 333-10668 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission into which the Form 20-F will be incorporated by reference.



Very truly yours,



GAFFNEY, CLINE & ASSOCIATES, INC.



LOGO



Richard Bateman

Area Manager



|               |  |               |  |           |  |           |  |           |  |        |  |          
|-------------- |  | ------------- |  | --------- |  | --------- |  | --------- |  | ------ |  | ---------
|UNITED KINGDOM |  | UNITED STATES |  | SINGAPORE |  | AUSTRALIA |  | ARGENTINA |  | BRAZIL |  | VENEZUELA
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**Independent Auditors’ Consent**

 

The Board of Directors 

SAFLINK Corporation: 

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in registration statements (Nos. 333-92072, 333-74253, and 033-68832) on Form S-8, registration statements(Nos. 033-62430, 333-75789, 333-23467, 333-01510, 333-58575, 333-54084, and 333-112287) on Form S-3, registration statement (No. 333-97221) on Form S-2 and registration statement (No. 333-68642) on Form S-1 of SAFLINK Corporation of our report datedFebruary 6, 2004, except as to Note 13, which is as of March 22, 2004, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of SAFLINK Corporation and subsidiary as of December 31, 2003 and 2002, and the related consolidated statements of operations,stockholders’ equity (deficit) and comprehensive income (loss) and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2003, which report appears in the December 31, 2003, annual report on Form 10-K of SAFLINKCorporation. 

 

 

Seattle, Washington 

March 30, 2004
|Exhibit 32.1
|------------

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, 
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of China Energy Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended August 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), WenXiang Ding, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of operations of the Company.




|/s/ WenXiang DingWenXiang Ding
President, Chief Executive Officer, Secretary andDirectorDated: October 15, 2007
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



---
#### STATE ex rel. Ronald WATSON v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 88-KH-0121.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 12, 1988.

In re Watson, Ronald; applying for remedial and/or supervisory writ; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “G”, No. 314-593.

Denied. Appeal pending.
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

 

I, Michael Garnreiter, certify that:

 

1.             I have reviewedthis annual report on Form 10-K of Main Street Restaurant Group, Inc.;

 

2.             Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.             Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations, and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.             The registrant’sother certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) for the registrant and have:

 

a)             Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

b)            Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presentedin this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and

 

c)             Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.             The registrant’sother certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):

 

a)             Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize, and reportfinancial information; and

 

b)            Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

 
| Date:                   | March 8, 2005 |
|-------------------------|---------------|
|                    |
|                    |
| /s/ Michael Garnreiter  |          |
| Michael Garnreiter      |
| Chief Financial Officer |
|                         |               |  |

 

----
|                   |   |                                                                             |
|------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                   |   |                                                                             |
|                   |   |                                                                             |
| November      14, 2008 |   | /s/      Gregory Webster                                                         |
|                   |   | Name:  Gregory      Webster                                            |
|                   |   | Title:  Chief      Executive Officer(Principal Executive      Officer) |
|                   |   |                                                                             |
|                   |   |                                                                             |

| November      14, 2008 | By:    | /s/      Michael Hlavsa                                                           |
|------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                   |   | Name:  Michael      Hlavsa                                              |
|                   |   | Title:  Chief      Financial Officer(Principal Accounting      Officer) |
#### Donald WADE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. AY-285.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 9, 1986.

On Motion for Rehearing May 15, 1986.

Michael E. Allen, Public Defender, and Glenna Joyce Reeves, Asst. Public Defender, Tallahassee, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Wallace E. Allbritton, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Upon reconsideration pursuant to the mandate of the Supreme Court of Florida we apply the rule in *Albritton v. State,*476 So.2d 158 (Fla.1985), and affirm the trial court’s departure from the presumptive sentencing guidelines.

Although, in this case, both valid and invalid reasons for departure were given, the State has demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that the absence of the invalid reasons would not have affected the departure sentence. Accordingly, we affirm.

BOOTH, C.J., SHIVERS, J., and TILLMAN PEARSON (Ret.), Associate Judge, concur.

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

Motion for rehearing is granted for the purpose of considering the following supplemental authorities cited by appellant:

> *State v. Misckler,*488 So.2d 523 (Fla.1986).

> *State v. Cote,*487 So.2d 1039 (Fla.1986).

> *Hankey v. State,*485 So.2d 827 (Fla.1986).

After consideration, we adhere to the original opinion.

BOOTH, C.J., SHIVERS, J., and TILLMAN PEARSON (Ret.), Associate Judge, concur.
#### Ex parte Austin CASON. (Re Austin Cason v. State of Alabama).

86-1173.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Sept. 18, 1987.

Arthur Parker, Birmingham, for petitioner.

Don Siegelman, Atty. Gen., for respondent.

MADDOX, Justice.

Writ denied. Because we find no error to reverse with respect to the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of criminally negligent homicide, this writ is denied. A denial of certiorari should never be considered as an expression by the reviewing court on the merits of the controversy. See *Hamilton Brown Shoe Co. v. Wolf Brothers,*240 U.S. 251, 36 S.Ct. 269, 60 L.Ed. 629 (1916).

As we understand the opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals, 515 So.2d 721, that court applied the “harmless error” rule to the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury on criminally negligent homicide, based upon all the facts and circumstances of this case. In denying certiorari, we should not be understood as agreeing that the trial court committed error in refusing the requested charge on the lesser included offense, but that the accused was not entitled to have the jury so charged because of the particular facts and circumstances presented here. Because the evidence here was insufficient to entitle the petitioner to have the jury so charged, the failure of the trial court to give the requested charge was not error under the particular facts and circumstances of this case.

WRIT DENIED.

JONES, SHORES, BEATTY and HOUSTON, JJ., concur.
**EXHIBIT32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONSPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of U.S. Premium Beef, LLC (the Company) onForm 10-Q for the period ended November 28, 2009 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Steven D. Hunt,Chief Executive 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) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 

     (2)The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

|   |   |                                    |
|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------|
| By:    |   | /s/ Steven D. Hunt                      |
|   |   |                                    |
|   |   | Steven D. Hunt*Chief Executive Officer* |

Date: January 8, 2010
**EXHIBIT 32.01**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Annual Report of New Frontier Media, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael Weiner, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge: 

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and 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. 

   Michael WeinerChief Executive Officer

June 13, 2006

----
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas** May 6, 2015 N o. 04
- 15
- 00249
- CV IN THE INTEREST OF M.A.H.T., J.H.T., J.R.T.H., J.I.T.V., B.Z.T.V., Minor Children, From the 111th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas Trial Court No. 2013

- CVL
- 002007
- D2 Honorable Monica Z. Notzon, Judge Presiding 

### ORDER The trial court signed a final judgment on March 16, 2015
. Because appellant did not file any motion to extend this deadline, the notice of appeal was due to be filed on April 6, 2015
. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 26.1(a). A motion for extension of time to file the notice of appeal was due on April 21, 2015
. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 26.3. A motion for extension of time is necessarily implied when an appellant, acting in good faith, files a notice of appeal in the t rial court beyond the time allowed by Rule 26.1 but within the fifteen

- day grace period provided by Rule 26.3 for filing a motion for extension of time. See Verburgt v. Dorner , 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997) (construing the predecessor to Rule 26). Howe ver, the appellant must offer a reasonable explanation for failing to file the notice of appeal in a timely manner. See id. ; T EX . R. A PP . P. 26.3, 10.5(b)(1)(C). In this case, appellant’s notice of appeal , filed in the trial court on April 23, 2015, was not filed within the fifteen

- day grace period. It is therefore ORDERED that appellant file, within fifteen days from the date of this order, a response presenting a reasonable explanation for failing to file the notice of appeal in a timely manner and cause showing the notice of appeal was otherwise timely . If appellant fails to respond within the time provided, the appeal will be dismissed. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 42.3(c). All deadlines in this matter are suspended until further order of this court.

_________________________________ Jason Pulliam, Justice IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 6th day of May, 2015 .

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle Clerk of Court
*This matter is being decided by a quorum. 28 U.S.C. §

46(d).

 

** Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-11369

Conference Calendar

 

MUQTASID A. QADIR,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE - INSTITUTIONAL

DIVISION; WAYNE SCOTT, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF

CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION; ALEXANDER C. 

KALMANOV; MCCONVILLE, Nurse; PETERSON, Nurse,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:97-CV-2

- - - - - - - - - -

February 10, 1999

Before BARKSDALE and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.*

PER CURIAM:**

 Muqtasid Qadir (TDCJ #743563) appeals the district court’s

summary-judgment dismissal of his pro se and in forma pauperis

(IFP) civil rights complaint wherein he alleged the denial of

adequate medical. Qadir argues that the district court abused

its discretion by (1) granting summary judgment without allowing 
No. 97-11369

-2-

him additional discovery; (2) denying his motion to compel the

production of documents; and (3) denying his motion for a

temporary injunction.

 With regard to Qadir’s first two arguments, we have reviewed

the records and the briefs of the parties and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we AFFIRM. See Qadir v. TDCJ et al., No.

7:97-CV-002-X (N.D. Tex., Nov. 21, 1997). Qadir’s argument that

the district court should have granted him a temporary injunction

is MOOT in light of the district court’s dismissal of the

complaint. See Cypress Barn, Inc. v. Western Elec. Co., 812 F.2d

1363, 1364 (11th Cir. 1987).

 AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 99.1
                           ============

        Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
----------------------------------------------------------------------

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Rotoblock
Corporation (Registrant), as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Howard Gelfand,
Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting 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 the best of my knowledge and
belief:

   (1)  the quarterly 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 quarterly report fairly
        presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
        results of operations of Registrant.



Date:  December 15, 2004      /s/ Howard Gelfand
                              ----------------------------------
                              Chief Financial Officer and
                              Principal Accounting Officer












<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 32.2






Certification of Principal Accounting Officer Pursuant to






Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350








In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Rotoblock Corporation (Registrant), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Richard Di Stefano, Principal Accounting 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 the best of my knowledge and belief:






(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 Registrant.









Date: September 16, 2010








ROTOBLOCK CORPORATION




/s/ Richard Di Stefano





By: Richard Di Stefano, Chief Financial Officer/Principal Accounting Officer
## MEMORANDUM

**DATE:** 11/24/14 **FROM:** Ken Mitchell/EPA Region 4 **TO:** Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR – 2013 - 0602 **SUBJECT:** Discussion of the Clean Power Plan at Board Meeting of the American Lung Association

of the Southeast
**SUMMARY :**  

### Region 4 provided information on the Clean Power Plan to participants at a Board Meeting of the American Lung Association of the Southeast in Atlanta, GA , on October 10, 2014 . The Clea n Power Plan for Existing Power Plants was p roposed on June 2, 2014. **ATTENDEES :**  **EPA** Ken Mitchell/EPA R4 **External Stakeholders** June Deen/American Lung Association in Georgia, North Carolina , and South Carolina Approximately 35 other attendees
**ATTACHMENT**
#### KEY WEST MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellant, v. Stanley COIRA, M.D., John W. Buckner, M.D., and Karl M. Davidson, M.D., Appellees.

No. 86-1445.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 6, 1987.

James C. Blecke and Susan S. Lerner, Miami, for appellant.

Cooper, Wolfe & Bolotin and Marc Cooper, Miami, Montgomery,. Searcy and Den-ney, West Palm Beach, Steel, Hector & Davis and Elizabeth J. DuFresne, Miami, for appellees.

*738Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and HENDRY and FERGUSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The final judgment for the plaintiffs in this defamation action, entered after a non-jury trial, is amply supported by the record and the applicable law and is therefore affirmed.
#### Urbain Joseph SAVARIA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 87-1423.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 15, 1988.

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Laura Griffin, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Charles Corees, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

THREADGILL, Judge.

The appellant challenges the trial court’s revocation of his community control and sentence to three and one-half years in prison for violating numerous conditions of his community control. We find the testimony elicited from the appellant’s probation officer sufficient to support the trial court’s finding that multiple conditions of community control had been violated. We therefore, affirm the revocation of community control.

We, however, agree with the appellant that the trial court erred in including the substantive offense of burglary as a violation. The court specifically stated on the record that it would not consider this as a violation of community control. *See Robinson v. State,*468 So.2d 1106 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). Thus, the revocation order should be modified to delete this charge. Accordingly, we affirm the order revoking the appellant’s community control and subsequent sentence but remand for correction of the order of revocation. *See Brouillett v. State,*373 So.2d 449 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979).

Affirmed in part; remanded in part.

RYDER, A.C.J., and HALL, J., concur.