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

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 on Form 10-Q of DeFi Global, Inc.  (the  Company ), for the Nine months ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the  Report ), I, Jeff Rice, Chief Executive Officer and I, Mark Sierra,Principal Financial and Accounting Officer of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, do hereby certify, to 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 15 U.S.C. 78m (a) or 780(d)); 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/ Mark Sierra

Mark Sierra

Principal Financial and Accounting Officer





Dated:  November 15, 2010



/s/ Jeff Ricel

Jeff Rice

Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)



Dated: November 15, 2010



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided toDeFi Global, Inc.  and will be retained by DeFi Global, Inc.  and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**EXHIBIT31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Frank H. Laukien,certify that:

 

1.               I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/Aof Bruker Corporation; and 

 

2.               Based on my knowledge, this report does not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report.

 

 
| Date: May 25, 2010 | By:    | /s/ Frank H. Laukien                                                            |
|-------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                    |   | Frank H. Laukien, Ph.D.                                                         |
|                    |   | President, Chief  Executive Officer and Chairman  (Principal Executive Officer) |

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 32 (Thursday, February 15, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 11882]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-03088]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail and USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] 
Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: February 15, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
February 8, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] Contract 
187 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at 
www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2024-188, CP2024-194.

Sean Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-03088 Filed 2-14-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on December 15, 2023, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), Rust Foundation has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Lynx Software Technologies, San Jose, CA; and xFusion Digital Technologies Co., Ltd., Zhengzhou City, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA, have been added as parties to this venture.                

No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and Rust Foundation intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

                    On April 14, 2022, Rust Foundation filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on May 13, 2022 (87 FR 29384).                

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on October 3, 2023. A notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on December 15, 2023 (88 FR 86935).                

Suzanne Morris,

Deputy Director Civil Enforcement Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 2024-02218 Filed 2-2-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
#### Ex parte Hubert ALLRED.

No. 29799.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 9, 1958.

*851No attorney for appellant.

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

MORRISON, Presiding Judge.

This is an original application for writ of habeas corpus brought by the relator Hubert Allred seeking his release from the penitentiary. He alleges that the order cumulating the sentences by virtue of which he is confined is ineffectual.

From the record before us, we learn the following:

On August 25, 1947, relator plead guilty to a felony indictment in the 72nd District Court of Lubbock County, and his punishment was assessed at five years.

■ On May 21, 1948, relator was convicted of a felony in the District Court of Floyd County, and his punishment was assessed at six years. By order in the sentence, this conviction was cumulated with the Lubbock County conviction. Relator does not challenge the validity of either of these sentences since he has served the same.

On February 9, 1949, the relator plead guilty to a felony in the District Court of Howard County, and his punishment was assessed at five years. He does question the validity of the order in this sentence attempting to cumulate it with prior sentences. The order reads as follows: “This sentence shall not run concurrent with any other sentence heretofore received.”

It has been the consistent holding of this Court that such an order is insufficient to effect cumulation. Ex parte Hodge, 158 Tex.Cr.R. 549, 258 S.W.2d 323; Ex parte King, 158 Tex.Cr.R. 650, 259 S.W.2d 193; Ex parte Hamilton, Tex.Cr.App., 290 S.W. 2d 673; Ex parte Knox, Tex.Cr.App., 303 S.W.2d 388; and cases there cited.

We have been furnished with a certificate from the Texas Prison System showing that relator now has to his credit more than eleven years and further certifying that if the above sentences do not properly cumulate relator’s term has been completed.

The writ of habeas corpus is granted, and the relator is ordered discharged from confinement under the above sentences.
#### Estil ENGLAND et al., Appellants, v. The TEXAS COMPANY et al., Appellees.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

June 3, 1955.

*201A. E. Cornett, Hyden, for appellants.

Maxwell P. Barret, Hazard, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Estil England and three other landowners filed their joint complaint against the Texas Company and George Wooton, seeking damages in the sum of $1,500 each for the pollution of water by gasoline seepage from pumps and underground tanks. On the trial, a verdict was directed in favor of the defendants at the conclusion of the plaintiffs’ testimony. The appeal is from the judgment entered thereon.

We have examined the record and find no prejudicial error. Appellants had previously filed actions and recovered damages based on the temporary nature of the condition of which complaint was made. At the time these actions were filed and prosecuted, the source of the leakage had been stopped and the gasoline station abandoned, leaving only such pollution as remained in the soil. The temporary source of the pollution having been eliminated, the previous actions should have sought permanent damages for the pollution ensuing from the gasoline remaining in the soil. Therefore, the matter was res adjudicata and the court’s ruling was correct.

T , Judgment affirmed,
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.15

April 16, 2002


Mr. Gregory Arvesen
2250 Cloverfield Blvd.
Santa Monica, CA   90405

Re.:  Employment Agreement

Dear Mr. Arvesen:

      On behalf of Artisan Entertainment Inc. ("Company"), this is to notify you
that we are extending the term of your Employment Agreement ("Agreement") for an
additional year, October 4, 2002 through October 3, 2003 as provided for in
Section 1(b) of your Employment Agreement.

      Please acknowledge your receipt of this notification by signing below
where indicated and returning a copy of this letter to me. If you have any
questions, please call me at (310)255-3929.

Very truly yours,

Artisan Entertainment Inc.



Nancy V. Coleman
Senior Vice President

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT

THIS _______DAY OF APRIL, 2002

-----------------------------------
       GREGORY ARVESEN
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-05-00486-CR

Kevin Bryan Bolding, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 299TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. D-1-DC-05-300409, HONORABLE JON N. WISSER, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Kevin Bryan Bolding seeks to appeal from a judgment of conviction for forgery. The

trial court has certified that this is a plea bargain case and Bolding has no right of appeal. See Tex.

R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). The appeal is dismissed. See id. rule 25.2(d).

__________________________________________

David Puryear, Justice

Before Justices B. A. Smith, Patterson and Puryear

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: September 30, 2005

Do Not Publish
#### Floyd FOERSTER, Appellant, v. Louis PEOPLES, Appellee.

No. 7202.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Amarillo.

Dec. 3, 1962.

Campbell, Brock, Wright & Waters, Lubbock, for appellant.

Hay & Gillespie, Lubbock, for appellee.

DENTON, Chief Justice.

This is a suit seeking to recover money due under an oral contract of employment. Appellee, Louis Peoples, was employed for a period of one year by appellant to perform general farming duties. Peoples was to receive a salary of $30.00 per week plus the proceeds from ten acres of cotton. The employment began January 1, 1960, and ended on or about July IS of that same year. Peoples filed this suit alleging a breach of a contract and seeks damages therefor. Appellant filed a cross-action alleging appellee’s failure to perform the contract of employment, and plead an indebtedness owed to him by Peoples. Based on the jury’s answers to special issues submitted, a judgment was entered for appel-lee and appellant timely perfected this appeal.

Appellant attacks the first special issue by contending it is a submission of a question of law; that there is no evidence to support the submission of such issue; and that the jury’s answer to such issue is contrary to the great weight and preponderance of the evidence. Special issue number one and the jury’s answer thereto reads as follows:

> “Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that the contract between the plaintiff, Louis Peoples, and the defendant, Floyd Foerster, was breached by the said Floyd Foerster?

> “Answer ‘Yes’ or ‘No’.

> “Answer ‘Yes’.”

No definition or ' explanatory instruction in connection with this issue was given.

Rule 279, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, requires the trial court to submit controlling issues which are supported by the pleadings and the evidence. It is well settled that only issues of fact are to be submitted to the jury. As framed, special issue number one called on the jury to determine the effect of appellant's actions upon the oral contract between the parties. This is clearly a question of law and as such is an improper submission. Knutson v. Ripson, Tex.Civ.App., 346 S.W.2d 424, *919affirmed 354 S.W.2d 575; Advance Aluminum Castings, Corp. v. Schulkins; Tex.Civ.App., *267*S.W.2d 174; NRH; Burgess v. Sylvester, 143 Tex. 25, 182 S.W.2d 358. Appellant’s -first point of error is sustained:’ As this error requires a reversal of the' case, if is not deemed necessary to discuss' the other points of' error: However, these' points have been considered, and' in our opinion; they fail to disclose reversible error.

.Appellant strongly contends the case sjbp.uld be, reversed, and rendered rather than remanded. After reviewing the evi-, dence, we. are of the opinion that.-there is, some evidence of probative fo.rce. which supports the findings of the. jury in answer, to the controlling issues submitted.

The judgment -of the .trial court is ac~' cbrdingly reversed and'the cause remanded-for-a new trial;-’
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>  EPS PRIMARY REPRESENTS BASIC NET LOSS PER SHARE
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           15517
<SECURITIES>                                      8788
<RECEIVABLES>                                      261
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        520
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 25495
<PP&E>                                            4417
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   30294
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             9496
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         54976
<OTHER-SE>                                       (490)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     30294
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  3685
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 19464
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (234)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (14684)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (14684)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (14684)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.43)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.43)
        

</TABLE>
#### Mary Leona THORPE, Appellant, v. Virgil L. THORPE, Appellee.

No. 10455.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Austin.

Oct. 10, 1956.

Robert W. Hainsworth, Houston, for appellant.

Neil E. Clinkenbeard, Killeen, for appel-lee.

HUGHES, Justice.

This is a suit for, divorce in which appel-lee prevailed except that appellant was awarded judgment for $300 for attorney’s fees.

On July 10, 1956, we granted appellant’s motion for an extension, of time within which to file the record in this Court. The record was filed July 23, 1956.

On August 23, 1956, appellee filed a written motion herein to dismiss the appeal assigning numerous reasons only one of which we need note. This is appellant’s failure to timely file an appeal bond or to take other steps in .lieu of such filing.

Judgment wás r-endered and entered ’February 23¡ 1956; Motion for new trial was filed February 27, 1956. ■ The record does not show that this motion was ever presented to or acted upon by the trial 'court or that any agreement with reference thereto was made. This motion was overruled by operation of law upon the expiration of 45 days from the day on which it was filed. Rule 329-b(3, 4), Texas Rules of *725'Civil Procedure. This period would expire April 12, 1956. An appeal bond was approved and filed June 18, 1956. It should have been filed within 30 days after April 12. Rule 356, T.R.C.P. Hence we have no jurisdiction of this appeal. Bingham v. Kimbrell, Tex.Civ.App., Austin, 241 S.W.2d 252, writ ref. N.R.E.

The appeal is dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.
EX-10.1(A)



 Exhibit 10.1(a) 

June 1, 2016 
 Aspect
Capital Ltd. 
 10 Portman Square 

London W1H 6AZ U.K. 
 Attention:
Mr. Anthony Todd, CEO 
 Re:Management Agreement Renewals 

Dear Mr. Todd: 
 We are
writing with respect to your management agreements concerning the commodity pools to which reference is made below (the “Management Agreements”). We are extending the term of the Management Agreements through June 30, 2017 and all other
provisions of the Management Agreements will remain unchanged. 
  

	 	•	 	 Global Diversified Futures Fund L.P. 



 

	 	•	 	 Diversified 2000 Futures Fund L.P. 



 

	 	•	 	 Tactical Diversified Futures Fund L.P. 



 

	 	•	 	 CMF Aspect Master Fund L.P. 



 

	 	•	 	 Institutional Futures Portfolio L.P 



 

	 	•	 	 Global Futures Fund Ltd 



 

	 	•	 	 MSMF Custom Solutions Fund L.P. 



Please acknowledge receipt of this modification by signing one copy of this letter and returning it to the attention of Mr. Patrick T. Egan at 522
Fifth Avenue – 7th Floor, New York, NY 10036 or fax to 866-428-9026. If you have any questions, I can be
reached at 212-296-6808 or contact Jack Yuen at 212-296-1320. 
  

			
	 Very truly yours,

	
	 CERES MANAGED FUTURES LLC

		
	 By:
	 	 /s/ Patrick T. Egan

		 	 Patrick T. Egan

		 	 President and Director

	
	 ASPECT CAPITAL LTD.

		
	 By:
	 	 /s/ Jonathan Greenwold



			
		
	 Print Name:
	 	 Jonathan Greenwold

	 PE/kg
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

PUBLICMEDIA WORKS, INC.

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. §1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Public Media Works, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB forthe period ending August 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Thomas A. Szabo,Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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 allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 
| Date:  October 14,  2004 | /s/ Thomas A. Szabo                   |   |
|-----------------------------------------|---------------------------------------|--------|
|                                    | Thomas A. Szabo                       |
|                                    | Chief Executive Officer  and Chairman |

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Companyand will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
Exhibit 99.1

                              ZKID NETWORK COMPANY

                     PROFORMA COMBINED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

In January 2001, E.Kid  Network.com,  Inc. (Ekid) merged with East Coeur d'Alene
Silver Mines, Inc. (East Coeur d'Alene) as a reverse acquisition where Ekid will
continue  as the  operating  company  and  will  be  the  surviving  entity  for
accounting  purposes.  The  continuing  company  will be known  as Zkid  Network
Company  (Zkid).  Subsequent  to this  merger,  in April  2001,  the  registrant
(Quadric  Acquisition  Corporation)  was  acquired  as part of the  plans of the
continuing   company  through  a  section  12(g)3  merger,   wherein   Quadric's
shareholders received stock in Zkid, the continuing company, and Zkid became the
reporting registrant.

The following proforma combined financial  statements reflect the acquisition of
100% of the common stock of E.Kid Network.com, Inc., the operating company to be
known as Zkid, by the registrant as of December 31, 2000 and March 31, 2001. The
transaction  involves the exchange of  15,000,000  common  shares and  1,000,000
preferred  shares  for  3,000  common  shares of Zkid,  which  were  issued  and
outstanding.  This transaction  between Ekid and East Coeur d'Alene precedes the
transaction in which the registrant was acquired.

The proforma  financial  statements have been prepared  utilizing the historical
financial  statements  of Zkid  Network  Company  (formerly  known as East Coeur
d'Alene Silver Mines,  Inc.) and E.Kid  Network.com,  Inc. and should be read in
conjunction with the separate historical  financial statements and notes thereto
of these  companies for the respective  periods  presented.  The  acquisition of
Quadric,  the  registrant,  is accounted for as a financing  transaction  in the
proforma financial information.

The  proforma  financial   information  is  based  on  the  purchase  method  of
accounting.   The  proforma   combined   statements  of  operations  assume  the
acquisition of Ekid had occurred at the beginning of the period presented in the
statements. All inter-company accounts and transactions have been eliminated.

The proforma  combined  financial  statements do not purport to be indicative of
the financial positions and results of operations which actually would have been
obtained if the  acquisition  had occurred on the date  indicated or the results
which may be  obtained  in the future.  The  purpose of the  proforma  financial
statements is to report the effect of the  subsequent  mergers and  acquisitions
and the effect upon the reporting history of the registrant.