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








In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of True North Energy Corporation (the
      “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended October 31, 2006 as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
      John Folnovic, Principal 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) 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.





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.




/s/ John
              FolnovicName:
                John Folnovic
              Title:
                Principal Executive Officer
              Date:
                December 14, 2006
[Nos. 18582-2-II; 18587-3-II; 18626-8-II.

Division Two.

July 19, 1996.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Vicki Lee Cole, *Appellant.*The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Anthony Berry Segura, *Appellant.*The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Ronald Leighton Smith, *Appellant.*

Appeals from judgments of the Superior Court for Pierce County, Nos. 94-1-00797-3, 94-1-00798-1 and 94-1-00796-5, Donald H. Thompson, J., entered August 16,1994. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Bridgewater, J., concurred in by Armstrong, J., and Casey, J. Pro Tern.
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**





CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


18
      U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Lease Equity Appreciation Fund II,
      L.P.
      (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2006 as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
      I, Robert K. Moskovitz, Chief Financial Officer of the General Partner of the
      Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)
      The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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






Date: August
              14, 2006
            By:
            /s/ Robert
              K.
              MoskovitzRobert
              K. MoskovitzChief
                Financial Officer of the General
                Partner
Exhibit 10.3

        

     

      

    Reverse Repurchase Agreement

    

    

    THIS REVERSE REPURCHASE AGREEMENT (the “Agreement”) is made, entered into and effective as of the 31st day of March 2022 by and between A. Michael Stolarski (hereinafter the “Lender”) and SANUWAVE Health, Inc., a Nevada corporation (hereinafter the
      “Borrower”).

    

    

    W I T N E S S E T H :

    

    

    Whereas, IT IS KNOWN THAT the Lender is a member of the Board of Directors of the Borrower.

    

    

    Whereas, the Board of Directors of the Borrower recognizes that this Agreement is a financing of last resort.

    

    

    Whereas, the Board of Directors and the management of the Borrower are in agreement that the terms set forth in this Agreement, at the effective date, are more favorable to the Borrower than those that can be obtained
      from any other known commercial financing source.

    

    

    Whereas, management of the Borrower has made best efforts to obtain funds at terms better than those of this Agreement.

    

    

    Whereas, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements set forth herein, Lender agrees to make a certain reverse repurchase agreement with the Borrower in accordance with and subject to the terms and conditions
      hereinafter set forth.

    

    

    Initial Exchange.

    

    

    On March 31, 2022, the Lender will wire TWO HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($250,000.00) to the Borrower.

    

    

    Collateral.

    

    

    The collateral in this Agreement is 18 UltraMIST systems.

    

    

    Maturity.

    

    

    On April 22, 2022, the Borrower will wire TWO HUNDRED FIFTY SIX THOUSAND DOLLARS ($256,000.00) to the Lender. The collateral of this Agreement shall be returned to the Borrower upon payment-in-full.

    

    

    Counterparts.

    

    

    This Agreement and the Credit Documents may be executed in one or more duplicate originals which shall, either singly or together, serve to represent one agreement among the parties. This Agreement shall be legally
      executed and binding if signatures are affixed on separate counterparts, even if all signatures are not on one counterpart. The parties may execute this agreement “by facsimile” which shall create a legally binding agreement.

    

    

    

    

    
      
        Page 1 of 2

      

      
        


      

    

    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Borrower and Lender have executed this Agreement by and through their respectively duly authorized officers as of the date first above written.

    

    

    	 	
            LENDER:

          
	 	 
	 	
            /s/ A. Michael Stolarski

          
	 	
            A. MICHAEL STOLARSKI

          
	 	 	 
	 	
            BORROWER:

          
	 	 	 
	 	
            SANUWAVE HEALTH, INC.

          
	 	 
	 	
            By:

          	
            /s/ Kevin A. Richardson, II

          
	 	 	
            Authorized Officer

          


    

    

    

    

    

  

  
    Page 2 of 2
Ultra-Clean, Efficient, Reliable Power

Technology Briefing 

March 2015
Expanding Market Opportunities

Stationary

Industrial

Transportation

Compression

Natural Gas

Combined cycle plant

Coal-fired

Distributed 

Generation & Storage

Distributed 

Hydrogen

Carbon 

Capture

Electrolysis &

Storage

Distributed 

Generation

On-site CHP

Multi-MW grid 

support

DFC® carbonate fuel cells Solid Oxide fuel cells

On-site CHP 

Power & Energy 

Storage

Supply, 

Recovery & 

Compression 

Emission 

reduction / 

Power & CO2

Supply and 

emissions 

reduction

2

Technology Platform Support Low Carbon Goals

SOFC electrolysis 

and reversible SOFC 

with hydrogen 

storage
Carbon Capture

3

• Added Feature from Core 

DFC Technology

• Carbonate process transfers 

CO2 from Cathode to Anode

• This aspect can be exploited 

for CO2 separation in anode, 

allowing for easy capture

• Capture feature supported 

by DOE Fossil R&D and 

Industrial validation

• Attractive Market Solution

• Affordable compliance 

mechanism

• Scalable / Rapid installation

• Multiple Applications
Carbon Capture Applications

• Large-scale carbon capture from coalfired plants

– Ultimate objective of DOE-supported 

development

• Scalable carbon capture from natural 

gas plants

– Carbon reduction on baseload or peaking 

systems from DG thru Utility GTCC

• Carbon capture for industry 

– Reduced carbon footprint from energy 

intense processes (i.e. petrochemicial or 

cement production)

–

• Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR)

– On-site generation from associated gas 

with CO2 capture for EOR

4
Distributed Hydrogen

5

• $1/gal=$2/kg, per fuel used per mile

• 0.7 kg/d per car; 5 – 10 kg/d per bus

• Regional strategy: LA 70MW biogas 

at MW sites, enough for 40K cars

• Secure Biogas supply ,H2 contract

• Industrial users pay $5 to $20/kg 

depending on volume consumed

• On site tri-generation provides H2 

for $2 to $7/kg depending on cost of 

power an value of heat
SOFC Storage

• SOFC Stacks run very efficiently in fuel 

cell and electrolysis mode

• Hydrogen produced during electrolysis 

stored, used in fuel cell mode 

• Hydrogen storage expanded without 

increasing system cost

6

Large market 

potential

SOFC/

SOEC

PEM 

electrolysis/

Fuel

Cell

Li 

Battery

Pb 

Acid

Battery

Flow 

Battery

Compressed 

Air

Efficiency > 65%

Cost – <2 hr duration

Cost – > 2 hr duration

Scalability
Opinion issued April 22, 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01 - 14 - 00220 - CV

——————————— CHARLES EDWARDS AND MELANIE MALLEBRANCH , Appellant s V. ALISA EDWARDS , Appellee On Appeal from the 295 th District Court of Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Ca se No. 2012 - 16062

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant , Automation Wash, Ltd., has filed an appeal from the Order and Final Summary Judgment signed by the trial court on March 10, 2014

. Although no motion to dismiss has been properly filed, appellants Charles Edwards and Melanie Mallebranche informed the Court by telephone they no longer wish to pursue the appeal. Further, the required fees have not been paid and appellants are2

not appea ling as indigent. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 5, 20.1 ; see also T EX . G OV ’ T C ODE A NN . § § 51.207, 51.941(a), 101.041 ( West 201 3 ); Order Regarding Fees Charged in Civil Cases in the Supreme Court and the Courts of Appeals and Before the Judicial Panel on Multidistri ct Litigation, Misc. Docket No. 07

- 9138 (Tex. Aug. 28, 2007), reprinted in T EX . R. A PP . P . app. A § B(1) . After being notified on March 31, 2014 that this appeal was subject to dismissal, appellant did not adequately respond. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 5, 42.3( c). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as moot and for want of prosecution for failure to pay fees

. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 38.8(a), 42.3(b) . We dismiss any pending motions as moot. PER CURIAM Pane l consists of Justices Keyes, Bland, and Brown

.
----

**EXHIBIT        32.2**

**CERTIFICATION        PURSUANT TO**

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

**AS        ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

| (1)    | The                  Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13 (a) or                  15 (d) of                  the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                                                   |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                         |
| (2)    | The                  information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                  respects, the financial condition and results of operations of                  the                  Partnership. |

|   | By:    | /s/                  Nancy J. McGurk     |
|--------|--------|------------------------------------------|
|   | Name:  | Nancy                  J. McGurk         |
|   | Title: | Chief                  Financial Officer |
|   | Date:  | August                  15, 2005         |
|   |   |                                     |

----
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

 

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of AmericanPatriot Financial Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the periodending March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, T. Don Waddell, ChiefFinancial 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 therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and

 

(2)           The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

 

 
|   | /s/T. Don Waddell       |
|--------|-------------------------|
|   | T. Don Waddell          |
|   | Chief Financial Officer |
|   | May 15, 2009       |

 

1

----
#### E. E. Ropes, Plaintiff in Error, v. J. F. Allen, Defendant in Error.

Division A.

Writ of Error to Circuit Court, Putnam county; James T. Wills, Judge.

*417
      *E. E.*Ropes, *in pro per.*

No appearance for Defendant in Error-.

Per Curiam.

This action was brought by the plaintiff in éfror against the defendant in error. There was judgment for the defendant and the plaintiff takes writ of error. The judgment is affirmed.

Decision
Record of Discussion 

Docket No. FAA- Directorate Identifier: 14-AD-54 

With whom outside the FAA has this AD action been discussed (i.e., Design Approval Holder, 

manufacturer, ATA, NBAA, RAA, AOPA, ALPA, GAMA, etc)? 

ORGANIZATION PERSON CONTACTED DATE TOPICS DISCUSSED 

Boeing Kristin Larson 7/8/2014 Risk Analysis 

Other/ Additional Information:
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED MAY 10, 2024

NO. 03

- 23

- 00537

- CV

Casey Gibson , Appellant

v.

Summer Lopez , Appellee

APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF BELL COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE, JUSTICES TRIA NA AND THEOFANIS

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE TRIANA

This is an appeal from the judgment sign ed by the tr i a l c ourt on July 31, 2023 . Having reviewed

the record , the Court holds that Casey Gibson has not prosecuted his appeal and did not comply

with a notice from the C lerk of this C ourt

. Therefore, the Court dismisses the appeal for want of

prose cut ion. Because appellant is indigent and u nable to pay costs, no adjudica t i on of costs

is made.
EXHIBIT
        32.2
 
 **CERTIFICATION
        PURSUANT TO**
 **18
        U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**
 **AS
        ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**
 **SECTION
        906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
 
 
 In
        connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report of Blackhawk Capital Group
        BDC, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2005 as filed with
        the
        Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Robert M. Fujii,
        Chief
        Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
        1350,
        as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to
        the
        best of my knowledge, that:
 
 (1)  The
        Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
        the
        Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 (2)  The
        information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
        the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 Dated:
                  October 31, 2005By:
                  /s/ Robert M. FujiiRobert
                  M. Fujii, Chief Financial Officer
#### AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL-ROYAL TRAVEL SERVICES, INC. v. Rudolph HARGROVE, Jr.

Civ. 5723.

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

June 17, 1987.

*269Mark E. Spear and Weyraan W. McCra-nie, Jr., Brown, Hudgens, Richardson, Mobile, for appellant.

No brief for appellee.

HOLMES, Judge.

This is an appeal of an order granting the defendant’s motion pursuant to Rule 60(b), Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure, to set aside the default judgment entered against him.

It is well established that the granting of a Rule 60(b) motion, such as we have in this instance, is generally interlocutory and not appealable. *Ex parte Short,*434 So.2d 728 (Ala.1983); *Fisher v. Bush,*377 So.2d 968 (Ala.1979); *Hobbs v. Hobbs,*423 So.2d 878 (Ala.Civ.App.1982). *Cf. Hocutt v. Hocutt,*491 So.2d 247 (Ala.Civ.App.1986).

Accordingly, we have no choice but to dismiss the present appeal. We point out to the plaintiff that review of the granting of the Rule 60(b) motion, if appropriate, may be obtained on an appeal of the final judgment in this case. *See Nolan v. Nolan,*429 So.2d 596 (Ala.Civ.App.1982); *Hobbs,*423 So.2d 878.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

BRADLEY, P.J., and INGRAM, J., concur.
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 62 (Friday, March 30, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 19263]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7815]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings Notice

TIME AND DATE: Wednesday, April 4, 2012, 10 a.m.-11 a.m.

PLACE: Hearing Room 420, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East West Highway, 
Bethesda, Maryland.

STATUS: Closed to the Public.

Matter To Be Considered

Compliance Status Report

    The Commission staff will brief the Commission on the status of 
compliance matters.
    For a recorded message containing the latest agenda information, 
call (301) 504-7948.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Todd A. Stevenson, Office of the 
Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West 
Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 504-7923.

    Dated: March 28, 2012.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-7815 Filed 3-28-12; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
```
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Brady Craig Koch, Jr. v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-14-00248-CR

Trial court case number: 1861254

Trial court: County Criminal Court at Law No. 5 of Harris County

On November 20, 2014, this case was abated and remanded to the trial court to 

conduct a hearing to determine, inter alia, the reasons why appellant’s counsel had failed 

to timely file a brief on appellant’s behalf. On December 12, 2014, the supplemental 

clerk’s record was filed with the trial court’s findings of fact from the abatement hearing, 

held on December 5, 2014, and that hearing record was filed on December 9, 2014. The 

trial court requested an extension of time for appellant to prosecute this appeal because it 

had found that appellant’s counsel had been delayed in preparing appellant’s brief due to 

a lack of payment by appellant for the reporter’s record. The trial court further found that 

appellant was not indigent and would make his first reporter’s record payment on 

December 5, 2014. On December 9, 2014, the Clerk of this Court granted the reporter’s 

request for an extension of time to file the reporter’s record until January 5, 2015, 

because appellant had made record payment arrangements on December 5, 2014.

Although this Court’s September 25, 2014 order stated that this Court would only 

consider and decide those issues or points that do not require a reporter’s record for a 

decision, appellant has now paid for the reporter’s record. Accordingly, we 

REINSTATE this case on the Court’s active docket and ORDER appellant’s brief to be 

filed within 30 days of the filing of the reporter’s record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(a)(2).

The State’s brief, if any, is ORDERED to be filed within 30 days of the filing of 

appellant’s brief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(b).

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Evelyn V. Keyes

  Acting individually 

Date: December 18, 2014
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-18-00231-CR

EARL THOMPSON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

§

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 211th District 

Court

of Denton County (F17-1867-211)

March 7, 2019

Opinion by Justice Bassel

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial 

court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Dabney Bassel

 Justice Dabney Bassel
**
**Exhibit 15.5**

**Consent of Independent Accountants**

SuperGroup (SGHC) Limited 

St. Peter Port, Guernsey 

We herebyconsent to the incorporation by reference in this Shell Company Report on Form 20-F of Super Group (SGHC) Limited of our report dated September 9, 2021, relating to the consolidated financial statementsof Lanester Investments Limited, which appears in Super Group (SGHC) Limited’s Registration Statement on Form F-4 (No. 333-259395), which is incorporated by reference in this Shell Company Report on Form20-F.

/s/ BDO LLP 

BDO LLP 

London, United Kingdom 

February 2, 2022 
**
Residential Clothes Dryer Shipments

Electric Standard Electric Compact Electric* Gas 1993 3,674,000 1,156,000 1994 3,838,000 1,239,000 1995 3,823,000 1,169,000 1996 3,947,000 1,193,000 1997 4,115,000 1,195,000 1998 4,482,000 1,307,000 1999 4,865,000 1,444,000 2000 5,095,000 1,480,000 2001 5,117,000 1,384,000 2002 5,402,000 1,490,000 2003 5,718,000 5,622,260 95,740 1,616,000 2004 6,262,000 6,159,145 102,855 1,660,000 2005 6,408,000 6,329,966 78,034 1,707,000 2006 6,360,000 6,246,068 113,932 1,614,000 Year Shipments



### *CompactElectricshipmentsarenotavailablepriorto2003.Standardelectricshipmentsaredeterminedfromthedifferenceinoverallelectricshipmentsandcompactelectricshipments.
EXHIBIT 31.2
 CERTIFICATION OF
PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
           (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; and(b)
    
    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: May 16, 2011
    /s/ Amerisa KornblumAmerisa KornblumChief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)