alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.1


 



Purchase Agreement







Investor Leo Motors, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "A") and investee Shi Chul Kang, 100% share owner of Leo Members, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "B") hereby enter an investment agreement under the conditions stated below.







Article 1 (Purpose of the Contract)


As "A" decided to purchase the whole shares possessed by "B." This agreement is set to determine the details and other necessary related general affairs, and to clearly define the rights and obligations between "A" and "B".







Article 2 (Investment Actions)


"A" shall pay 300 million won (\300,000,000) to "B" until March 8, 2017 to purchase the 100% ownership (3,000,000 shares of Leo Members, Inc.) which "B" owns.







Article 3 (Obligation of Notification)


If an event that can cause a serious problem in business execution shall occur, "B" must immediately notify "A" of it without any hesitation.



1















Article 4 (Endorsement of Rights)


"A" cannot directly or indirectly endorse any rights or obligations stated on this agreement to a third party without "B"'s prior written consent. All endorsement of rights and obligations made without "B"'s prior written consent is not valid or effective.







Article 5 (Settlement of Conflict)


If any disputes shall occur for this agreement, solution should be seek through a discussion between both parties, yet if they cannot settle the dispute, it shall be resolved with a lawsuit under the jurisdiction of Seoul District Court.







IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Both PARTIES have executed this Agreement as of the date and year first above written in two copies, both original, one for each of the PARTIES.







March 8, 2017








2










Investor (A)


Company name: Leo Motors, Inc.


Address: 3887, Pacific Street, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA







/s/ Shi Chul Kang


Co-CEO: Shi Chul Kang 







/s/ Jun Heng Park


CO-CEO: Jun Heng Park 







Investee (B)


Company name: Leo Members, Inc.


Address: ES Tower 6F, Teheran-ro 52 Gil 17, Gangnam-Gu, Seoul, Korea 06212







/s/ Shi Chul Kang


Shi Chul Kang 













3
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 Heartland Payment Systems, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Maria Rueda, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:


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.


This certification is being provided pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not deemed to be “filed” for any purpose whatsoever.


Date: May 6, 2011


/s/Maria RuedaMaria RuedaChief Financial Officer
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

JAMES JORDAN, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 23-0025 (UNA)

)

TUCSON POLICE DEPARTMENT, )

)

Defendant )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the court on its initial review of plaintiff’s application for leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, and pro se complaint, ECF No. 1. The Court will grant 

the in forma pauperis application and dismiss the complaint without prejudice pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), by which the Court must dismiss a case “at any time” if it determines 

that the action is frivolous. 

According to plaintiff, he is subjected to a “psychological warfare system,” and the FBI 

“is using cyber attacks” and “fraud” whenever plaintiff attempted to schedule appointments with 

medical specialists. Compl., Ex. (ECF No. 1-1) at 10 (page numbers designated by CM/ECF). 

Plaintiff attributes to defendant various malfunctions of his vehicle, to include lights “blink[ing] 

from the inside” and an engine that “would stall.” Id. at 11-12. For these and other alleged 

“illegal acts by Tucson Police Plaintiff seeks judgment of 10 million” dollars. Id. at 12.

“A complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to 

relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell 

Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A complaint that lacks “an arguable basis 

either in law or in fact” is frivolous. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). On review 
2

of the complaint, the Court concludes that its factual allegations are incoherent, irrational or 

wholly incredible, rendering the complaint subject to dismissal as frivolous, see Denton v. 

Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992) (“[A] finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the 

facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible[.]”), and the Court cannot 

exercise subject matter jurisdiction over a frivolous complaint, Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 

536-37 (1974) (“Over the years, this Court has repeatedly held that the federal courts are without 

power to entertain claims otherwise within their jurisdiction if they are ‘so attenuated and 

unsubstantial as to be absolutely devoid of merit.’”) (quoting Newburyport Water Co. v. 

Newburyport, 193 U.S. 561, 579 (1904)); Tooley v. Napolitano, 586 F.3d 1006, 1010 (D.C. Cir. 

2009) (examining cases dismissed “for patent insubstantiality”).

A separate order will issue.

DATE: January 19, 2023 /s/

CHRISTOPHER R. COOPER

United States District Judge
Exhibit 31.4



CERTIFICATION



I, Dale E. Parker, Chief Financial Officer of Paperweight Development Corp., certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Paperweight Development Corp.;



2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included
in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4. The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:



a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure
that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



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



5. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants
board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



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: August 16, 2004



|           |  |                                      
|---------- |  | -------------------------------------
|           | 
|Signature: |  | /s/    DALE E. PARKER                
|           |  | Dale E. ParkerChief Financial Officer
<PAGE>   1

                                                                     EXHIBIT 23

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


The Board of Directors
The American Materials & Technologies Corporation

We consent to incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 33-44082
on Form S-8 of The American Materials & Technologies Corporation of our report
dated February 6, 1998 (March 23, 1998, with respect to Note 5) relating to the
consolidated balance sheets of The American Materials & Technologies Corporation
as of December 31, 1997 and 1996 and the related consolidated statements of
operations, stockholders' equity and cash flows for the years then ended, which
report appears in the annual report on Form 10-KSB of The American Materials &
Technologies Corporation for the year ended December 31, 1997.



Feldman Radin & Co. PC

New York, NY
March 27, 1998















                                       50
Abatement Order filed July 26, 2018

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-16-00838-CV

____________

MATTHEW KENDALL AND KENDALL ACQUISITION COMPANY, 

LLC, Appellants

V.

TURN-KEY SPECIALIST, INC. AND JAMES T. LEWELLEN, 

INDIVIDUALLY AND JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY, Appellees

On Appeal from the 152nd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2012-72621

ABATEMENT ORDER

Notice was filed on July 2, 2018, that appellee Turn-Key Specialist, Inc. is in 

bankruptcy. See Tex. R. App. P. 8.1. According to the notice, on June 7, 2018, TurnKey Specialist, Inc. petitioned for voluntary bankruptcy protection in the United 

States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas under case number 18-

33170. A bankruptcy suspends the appeal from the date when the bankruptcy 
petition is filed until the appellate court reinstates the appeal in accordance with 

federal law. Tex. R. App. P. 8.2. Accordingly, we ORDER the appeal abated.

When a case has been suspended by a bankruptcy filing, a party may move 

the appellate court to reinstate the appeal if permitted by federal law or the 

bankruptcy court. Tex. R. App. P. 8.3. If the bankruptcy court has lifted or terminated 

the stay, a certified copy of the order must be attached to the motion. Id. A party 

filing a motion to reinstate shall specify what further action, if any, is required from 

this court when the appeal is reinstated. See Tex. R. App. P. 10.1(a).

For administrative purposes only, and without surrendering jurisdiction, the 

appeal is abated and treated as a closed case until further order of this court.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Busby, Donovan, and Brown.
EXHIBIT 32

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of instaCare Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Keith Berman, Principal Executive Officer and 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, 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. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

|   | /s/ Keith Berman                                        |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | Keith Berman |
|--------|--------------|

|   | Principal Executive Officer and |
|--------|---------------------------------|

|   | Chief Financial Officer |
|--------|-------------------------|

|   | May 15, 2007 |
|--------|--------------|
#### Ex parte Lonzo USENER.

No. 38388.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 23, 1965.

*736Petsch & Petsch, by Alfred Petsch, Fredericksburg, for appellant.

Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Judge.

This is an appeal from an order of the District Court of Gillespie County refusing to discharge appellant after hearing and remanding him to the custody of the Sheriff of Gillespie County, Texas.

The application for writ of habeas corpus alleged that appellant had been convicted under a complaint, the charging part thereof reading as follows: “Made an improper approach for a left turn in that he did not use that portion of the right half of the road nearest to the center line thereof to make the said approach * * * ”, had been fined in the sum of $75.00, and that appellant was being held under a capias pro fine.

The sole issue, which has not heretofore been presented for the determination of this Court, is the constitutionality and validity of Section 65(b) of Article 6701d, Vernon’s Ann.Civ.St., which states:

> “Approach for a left turn shall be made in that portion of the right half of the roadway nearest the center line thereof and after entering the intersection the left turn shall be made so as to leave the intersection to the right of the center line of the roadway being entered.”

Appellant urges in his brief that this Court also determine the Constitutional validity of Section 65(d) of Article 6701d, V.A.C.S. The record before us does not reflect that Subsection (d) was involved in the offense charged. We have held that it is incumbent upon an accused to show that he was convicted or charged under that portion of the statute the constitutionality of which he questions. We do not write declaratory judgments. Donahoo v. State, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 388, 285 S.W.2d 952.

We now discuss appellant’s contention that Subsection (b) is so general and indefinite as to fail to define the offense with which he is charged with the degree of definiteness required by the Constitution and Laws of the -State of Texas and the United States.

The statute sets a standard sufficiently definite so that an ordinary and interested person might ascertain therefrom what offense he might commit by failing to comply therewith relative to the proper approach for a left turn. Ex Parte Trafton, 160 Tex.Cr.R. 407, 271 S.W.2d 814.

We overrule the contention that the statute in question is invalid for indefiniteness.

The judgment remanding appellant to the custody of the Sheriff of Gillespie County is affirmed.
Footnote 7 cite

– copied from EIA web page:

http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=77&t=3 

# Frequently Asked Questions

How much of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions are associated with electricity generation?

Total U.S. energy

- related emissions of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) by the electric power sector in 2012 were 2,039 million metric tons, or about 39% of total U.S. energy

- related CO 2 emissions.

CO2 emissions from U.S. electricity generation by source, 2012 1

Source Million Metric Tons Share of Total

Coal 1,514 74% Natural gas 494 24%

Petroleum 19 1%

Other 2 12 1%

Total 2,039

1 Preliminary 2012 data.

2 Miscellaneous wastes and from geothermal power generation.

Learn more:

Monthly Energy Review , Tables 12.1 and 12.6, contain most recent estimates of U.S. energy

related CO 2 emissions, total and by the electric power sector.

Electric Power Annual , Table 3.9, contains historical data on CO 2 emissions from all electricity generation (conventional power plants and combined

- heat

- and

- power plants).

What are greenhouse gases and how much are emitted by the United States?

Last updated: August 23, 2013
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of the Chief Financial Officer

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 Accenture SCA (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period
ended February 28, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Pamela J. Craig, Chief Financial Officer of Accenture plc, the general partner of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. §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: March 26, 2010



/s/ Pamela J. CraigPamela J. CraigChief Financial Officer of Accenture plc, general partner of Accenture SCA (principal financial officer)
#### Ronald R. SMITHERMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ronald J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 02-7262.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 30, 2003.

Decided Feb. 4, 2003.

Ronald R. Smitherman, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Eldridge Jeffrey, III, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Ronald R. Smitherman, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 *207U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability mil not issue for claims addressed by a district court on the merits absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). As to claims subject to dismissal solely on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability will not issue unless the petitioner can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.’ ” *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir.) (quoting *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000)), *cert. denied,*534 U.S. 941, 122 S.Ct. 318, 151 L.Ed.2d 237 (2001). We have reviewed the record and conclude that Smitherman has not satisfied either standard. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1994
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       3,904,691
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                      10,369,000
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             6,080,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 18,386,061
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         120,000
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                     24,625,833
<ALLOWANCE>                                  (566,116)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            (67,021,934)
<DEPOSITS>                                  60,220,881
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            458,711
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     4,453,300
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,889,042
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              67,021,934
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                668,092
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              589,704
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             1,257,796
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             305,888
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             305,888
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          951,908
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  182,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                837,031
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 67,881
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      67,881
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    36,381
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                       0
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                     0
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                    0
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>