alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 20.1

                               UNITED STATES
                    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                          Washington, D.C. 20549


                                FORM 8-K/A


                              CURRENT REPORT
  Pursuant to Section 13 OR 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934


    Date of report (Date of earliest event reported) September 26, 2003
                              --------------

                             ANTON DIST. INC.
              (Name of Small Business issuer in its charter)


MONTANA                            000-33057                    84 - 136550
State or other jurisdiction of    (Commission File No.)      (IRS Employer
                                                           Identification No.)
incorporation or organization)


              16125 SHAWBROOKE ROAD, SW, CALGARY, AB T4Y 3B3
                 (Address of principal executive offices)

                              (403) 256-6730
               (Registrant's telephone number)
                         -------------------------
Item 4.  Changes in Registrant's Certifying Accountant

On September 26, 2003, the registrants independent auditors, MacCallum
Horn, Chartered Accountants, resigned.  There are not now, nor have there
ever been any disagreements with MacCallum Horn regarding any accounting or
financial disclosure matters. A copy of the resignation letter is attached
to this report as Exhibit 16:1

Janet Loss, C.P.A. P.C. has been appointed the registrant's new independent
auditor.

The registrant has not consulted with Janet Loss, C.P.A., P. C. on any
accounting matters prior to her engagement.



SIGNATURES

     Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by
the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.


ANTON DIST. INC.

/S/ Kenneth Larsen
     Kenneth Larsen, President

/S/ Lance Larsen
     Lance Larsen, Secretary/Treasurer



Date   October 30, 2003







                               EXHIBIT 16:1


                            RESIGNATION LETTER



MacCallum Horn LLP












September 26, 2003

Anton Dist. Inc.
254 - 16 Midlake Blvd SE
Calgary, Alberta
T2X 2X7

Attention:	Lance Larson

Dear Mr. Larson

	RE: Resignation of Auditor

In accordance with Regulation S-K 304, we have resigned as auditor of Anton
Dist. Inc. effective immediately.  We confirm that we have issued a standard
auditor's report for the past two years with no qualifications or
modifications.  We also confirm that there has been no disagreements with
management on any accounting issues or that a change was recommended by the
Board of Directors or the Audit Committee.

Please contact us if you have any questions or concerns.

Yours truly,

MacCallum Horn LLP



Harold VanderSchee, CA

G:\89004
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

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 Shopping.com
Ltd. (the Registrant) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Greg J. Santora, Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant,
certify, in accordance with 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:



| | (1) | The Report, to which this certification is attached as Exhibit 32.2, fully complies with the requirements of Sections 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 Registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



A signed original of this written statement required by 18 U.S.C. Section
1350 has been provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



Dated: August 9, 2005



By:

/s/ Greg J. SantoraGreg J. SantoraChief Financial Officer
#### Brooks ESTES v. STATE.

No. 28602.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 10, 1956.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

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

PER CURIAM.

Unlawful possession of heroin is the offense; the punishment, five years in the penitentiary.

Accompanying the record is appellant’s personal affidavit requesting the dismissal of the appeal. The request is granted. The appeal is dismissed.
Exhibit 32.1(*)

Certification of Chief Executive 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 WebEx Communications, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2003
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Subrah S. Iyar, Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, for purposes of Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title
18 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:

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

Date:  November 13, 2003


/s/   SUBRAH S. IYAR
---------------------
Subrah S. Iyar
Chief Executive Officer












----------------------------
(*)  In accordance with Item 601(b)(32)(ii) of Regulation S-K and SEC
Release Nos. 33-8238 and 34-47986, Final Rule: Management's Reports on
Internal Control Over Financial Reporting and Certification of
Disclosure in Exchange Act Periodic Reports, the certification
furnished in this Exhibit 32.1 is deemed to accompany this Form 10-Q
and will not be deemed "filed" for purpose of Section 18 of the
Exchange Act.  Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated
by reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Exchange
Act, except to the extent that the registrant specifically incorporates
it by referenceof Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or
otherwise subject to the liabilities of that section.
**MPD** IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 2 2 - 0 043 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee , v. CORY ANN RUCKER,

Defendant and Appellant .

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30 - day extension of time, and good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is gran ted an extension of time to and including October 9 , 202 3 , within which to prepare, file, and serve its response brief.

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

August 28 2023

08/28/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0043
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Preamble Section VI Table V-32 Update

Table VI-32. Costs and Benefits of Proposed Standards for HD Pickups and Vans Under 

Alternative Assumptions

Sensitivity Case

Fuel 

Savings 

(billion 

gallons)

CO2 

Reduction 

(MMT)

Fuel 

Savings 

($billion)

Social 

Costs 

($billion)

Social 

Benefits 

($billion)

Net 

Social 

Benefits 

($billion)

6 Month Payback (main) 7.8 94.1 15.9 5.5 23.5 18.0

0 Month Payback 8.9 107.7 18.3 5.8 27.0 21.3

12 Month Payback 7.4 87.2 15.2 5.6 21.9 16.3

18 Month Payback 5.5 65.8 11.7 4.9 16.8 11.9

24 Month Payback 4.5 52.7 9.2 4.4 13.3 8.9

AEO-Low 8.1 94.7 11.5 5.1 17.8 12.7

AEO-High 7.3 84.9 19.6 5.8 27.4 21.6

AEO-Low, 0 Month Payback 9.3 109.1 13.3 5.6 20.6 15.1

AEO-High, 24 Month Payback 2.8 32.4 7.2 2.9 10.2 7.3

50pct Owner/operator Benefit 7.8 91.5 8.0 5.8 15.0 9.2

75pct Owner/operator Benefit 7.8 91.5 11.9 5.8 19.0 13.2

Low SCC 7.8 91.5 15.9 5.8 20.5 14.8

Low SCC, 0 Month Payback 8.9 104.7 18.3 6.1 23.6 17.5

High SCC 7.8 91.5 15.9 5.8 24.7 19.0

High SCC, 0 Month Payback 8.9 104.7 18.3 6.1 28.5 22.4

Very High SCC 7.8 91.5 15.9 5.8 29.5 23.8

Very High SCC, 0 Month Payback 8.9 104.7 18.3 6.1 34.0 27.9

05 Pct Rebound Effect 8.2 95.7 16.6 5.0 23.0 18.0

15 Pct Rebound Effect 7.5 87.2 15.2 6.5 22.9 16.4

20 Pct Rebound Effect 7.1 83.0 14.4 7.2 22.8 15.5

RPE-Based Markup 7.6 90.1 16.0 7.6 22.9 15.4

Mass Fatality Coeff 05pct 7.8 91.5 15.9 4.4 23.0 18.5

Mass Fatality Coeff 95pct 7.8 91.5 15.9 7.1 23.0 15.8

NoSHEVs 7.2 84.3 14.6 8.0 21.1 13.1

NoSHEVs, 0 Month Payback 7.0 82.0 14.3 4.4 20.6 16.2

Lower Effectiveness 7.9 94.0 16.7 6.8 23.9 17.1

Higher Effectiveness 7.5 88.0 15.3 10.1 22.1 12.0

Lower Direct Costs 7.7 90.5 15.8 5.2 22.8 17.6

Higher Direct Costs 7.8 91.5 8.5 3.8 13.8 10.0

Wider Diesel Downsizing 8.9 104.7 9.9 4.0 15.9 11.9

07 Pct Discount Rate 9.0 96.3 15.3 7.2 22.7 15.5

07 Pct DR, 0 Month Payback 10.3 112.2 18.2 8.5 26.9 18.4

Allow Gas To Diesel 7.9 92.3 16.0 5.9 23.1 17.2

Allow Gas To Diesel, 0 Month 

Payback 7.3 85.8 15.1 6.9 21.7 14.8

Flat mix after 2016 8.4 99.8 17.6 7.4 25.4 17.9
```

                                                                    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 Bancorp Rhode Island,  Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending  September 30, 2004, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  the
undersigned President and Chief Executive Officer hereby certifies,  pursuant to
18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

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

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

Dated this 18th day of November, 2004.

/s/  Merrill W. Sherman
------------------------------
Merrill W. Sherman
President and
Chief Executive Officer

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to Bancorp  Rhode  Island,  Inc. and will be retained by Bancorp  Rhode
Island,  Inc. and  furnished to the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission or its
staff upon request.

                                                                 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 Bancorp Rhode Island,  Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending  September 30, 2004, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  the
undersigned Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer hereby certifies,  pursuant to
18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

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

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

Dated this 18th day of November, 2004.

/s/  Albert R. Rietheimer
------------------------------
Albert R. Rietheimer
Chief Financial Officer
and Treasurer

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to Bancorp  Rhode  Island,  Inc. and will be retained by Bancorp  Rhode
Island,  Inc. and  furnished to the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission or its
staff upon request.
```
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

PAUL W. WILLIAMS

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 2D23-2251

February 14, 2024

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for

Hillsborough County; Barbara Twine Thomas, Judge.

Paul W. Williams, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

VILLANTI, LaROSE, and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
#### Helen Katherine GUYTON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 28568.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas,

Nov. 7, 1956.

No attorney for appellant of record on' appeal.

Henry Wade, Criminal Dist. Atty., Thomas B. Thorpe, Asst. Criminal Dist. Atty., Dallas, and Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

PER CURIAM.

The offense is a violation of Article 725 b, Vernon’s Ann.P.C., which denounces the possession of paraphernalia for using narcotic drugs; the punishment, 4 years.

The record on appeal contains no statement of facts or bills of exception. All proceedings appear to be regular, and nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
#### Lorenzo ALEMAN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27900.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 7, 1955.

Kelley, Looney, McLean & Littleton, Edinburg, by Sidney Farr and Charles Weaver, Edinburg; for' appellant.

James S.- Bates, Crim. Dist. Atty., Dave Horger, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., Edinburg, Leon B.i Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State. •

BELCHER, Commissioner.

The conviction is for contributing to the delinquency of- a. minor; the punishment, 9,0 days-in jail.

In view of our disposition of this case a statement of the facts will be omitted;

Attorneys for the state confess error in this cause and in doing so agree with-the contention of the appellant that the complaint and information are void because the jurat on the complaint shows that the oath of the' affiant was ádministéred by one person1 in the name of another;

The. jurat on the complaint■ shows that the- oath was administered to the affiant in the name-of Jim Bates, .County Attorney, Hidalgo County,. Texas; Criminal District Attorn ey-,. Hidalgo County, Texas, by Raul L. Longoriaj Assistant. >

•The oath to 1⁄81⁄8 affiant under the facts here presented cannot be' l'egálly administered by the assistant in the name of his principal, and for that reason the complaint' herein is -void, as. well .as the information based-thereon. 12 Tex.Jur. 585, sec. 258; Stalcup v. State, 99 Tex.Cr.R. 415, 269 S. W. 1044.

The judgment is reversed and the prosecution 'ordered dismissed.

Opinion approved by the Court
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 17 (Wednesday, January 26, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 4569]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: C1-2010-29022]

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

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

17 CFR Part 165

RIN Number 3038-AD04

Implementing the Whistleblower Provisions of Section 23 of the 
Commodity Exchange Act

Correction

    In proposed rule document 2010-29022, beginning on page 75728 in 
the issue of Monday, December 6, 2010, make the following correction:
    On page 75727, in the cover for Part II, the agency name 
``Commodity Futures Trading Corporation'' should read ``Commodity 
Futures Trading Commission.''

[FR Doc. C1-2010-29022 Filed 1-25-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
```
#### Herbert FRIEDA, Individually and Doing Business as Floresville Butane Company, Appellant, v. A. W. KROESCHE, Individually and Doing Business as Butane Gas and Equipment Company, Appellee.

No. 12981.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

March 14, 1956.

Rehearing Denied April 11, 1956.

*892Clark Murray, Floresville, for appellant.

Davis, Clemens, Knight & Weiss, San Antonio, for appellee.

POPE, Justice.

This is an appeal from an order appointing a-receiver, and is *not*an appeal *on*the merits of the case. A. W. Kroesche, d/b/a Butane Gas and Equipment Company, sued Herbert Frieda, d/b/a Floresville Butane Company, for a declaratory judgment with reference to a contract and also for foreclosure of a chattel mortgage. On February 23, 1954, Kroesche contracted to sell his butane business and certain property .to Frieda. Frieda defaulted upon his installment payments. Frieda admits the default, but urges that the contract defeats any right on the part of Kroesche to an action for money or for a receivership. Frieda urges that the contract provided exclusively for liquidated damages in the event of default. The provision relied upon is:

> “If any monthly installment of such purchase price of any part thereof is not paid when due, or -if Frieda fails to pay when due any amount due for fuel or storage charges, or if Frieda should default in the performance of any covenant or agreement herein contained and such default shall continue for as long as five, days, Kroesche may, at his option, * * * cancel this agreement and retake possession of the property, * * * and all payments previously made by Frieda shall be retained by Kroesche as rental for the use of the property and as liquidated damages, * *

We find no error, under the record, in -the appointment of the receiver. The clause provides that Kroesche “may at his option” cancel the agreement. The record does not reveal that Kroesche has exercised the option which would bring into operation the liquidated damage provision. .We do not reach the question whether recovery of liquidated damages is the exclusive remedy for Kroesche. After the parties made the contract in 1954, Frieda on another account owed Kroesche $4,898.76. To secure that debt, he executed a chattel mortgage, on property other than that covered by the contract of February 23, 1954. Frieda was in default on his monthly installments of $500, which he agreed to pay in discharge of the mortgage.

The court found that- the property was in danger of being lost, removed and materially injured, and that the appointment of a receiver was necessary. In our opinion, the court-did not abuse its discretion in appointing the receiver. Art. 2293, § 2, Vernon’s Ann.Civ.Stats.; Ellis v. Jefferson Standard Life Ins. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 78 S.W.2d 645.

The judgment is affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6065
FRANK ERVIN ALTIZER, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE; RICHARD A. Y OUNG; GEORGE DEEDS, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-96-3-R) Submitted: May 16, 1996 Decided: June 3, 1996 Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Frank Ervin Altizer, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Altizer v. Angelone , No. CA-96-3-R (W.D. Va. Jan. 3, 1996).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.

AFFIRMED
DENIED and Opinion Filed April 9, 2024 

# S

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-24-00188-CV IN RE RENE KING, Relator Original Proceeding from the 291st Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F-2071454

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Burns, Justi ce Molberg, and Justice Breedlove Opinion by Chief Justice Burns Before the Court is relator’s February 21, 2024 petition for writ of mandamus wherein he asks this Court to compel the trial court to dismiss some or all of the proceedings in Cause No. F-2071454. Relator’s status as an inmate does not relieve him of his duty to comply with the rules of appellate procedure. In re Skinner , No. 05-23-00930-CV, 2023 WL 6618295, at *1 (Tex. App.—Da llas Oct. 11, 2023, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). Upon review of relator’s petiti on, relator fails to meet so me of the requirements of the Texas Rules of Appella te Procedure for considera tion of mandamus relief. See In re Backusy , No. 05-23-00674-CV, 2023 WL 4540278, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas–2– July 14, 2023, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); see also T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52.1, 52.3(a)– (d), 52.3(f)–(k), 52.7(a). For example, it is relator’s burden to provi de the Court with a sufficient record to show his entitlement to mandamus relief. Skinner , 2023 WL 6618295, at *1; see also T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A) (requiring a relator to file “a certified or sworn copy of any order complained of, or any other document showing the matter complained of”); T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52.7(a)(1) (requiring a rela tor to file “a certified or sworn copy of every document that is mate rial to the relator’s claim for relief and that was filed in any underlying proceedi ng”). Although relator filed two documents with this petition, neither is a sworn or certified copy as required by the rules. Relator also failed to certify he has reviewed the petition and concluded that every factual statement is supported by co mpetent evidence included in the appendix or record. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52.3(j). Without a certified petition and authenticated record, relator has failed to carry his burden to provide a sufficient record. See In re Skinner , No. 05-23-01077-CV, 2023 WL 8230683, at *1 (Tex . App.—Dallas Nov. 28, 2023, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). Further, relator’s petition lacks a statem ent of facts supported by citations to competent evidence included in an appendix or record, and it does not include a “clear and concise argument for the contentio ns made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the appendix or record.” T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52.3(g), (h). The petition is also missing the following: a list identi fying the parties and counsel, a table of–3– contents, an index of authorities, a statement of the case, and a stat ement of the issues presented. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52.3(a)–(c), (d)(1)–(3), (f). Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.

240188F.P05 /Robert D. Burns, III / ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE