alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.3


                            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 of Randgold Resources Limited (the
"Company") on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, D.
Mark Bristow, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, 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 result of operations of
         the Company.

                                                  /s/ D. Mark Bristow
                                                  -------------------------
                                                  D. Mark Bristow
                                                  Chief Executive Officer

         June 27, 2003
#### SMITH v. STATE.

No. 23867.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 7, 1948.

*382No attorney for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was found guilty of murder without malice, and his punishment assessed' at three years in the penitentiary.

The indictment is in proper form and the proceedings otherwise appear regular. No statement of facts or bills of exception are brought forward. In such condition of the record nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
| Subsidiary                                    |   | Jurisdiction                of Organization |   | Doing                Business As       |
|-----------------------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------|
| 2093603                Ontario, Inc.          |   | Ontario,                Canada              |   | N/A                                    |
|                                          |   |                                        |   |                                   |
| Solar                Roofing Systems, Inc.    |   | Ontario,                Canada              |   | Open                Energy Corporation |
|                                          |   |                                        |   |                                   |
| Barnabus                Energy Inc.           |   | Alberta,                Canada              |   | N/A                                    |
|                                          |   |                                        |   |                                   |
| Connect                Renewable Energy, Inc. |   | Nevada                                      |   | Open                Energy Corporation |

----
Exhibit 10.1


 


 


 


June 22, 2021


 


Mr. Gary Loffredo


Chief Operating
Officer


Cinedigm Corporation


237 West 35th Street, Suite 605


New
York, New York 10001


 


Re: Loan No. 372001061


 


Dear Mr. Loffredo:


 


Reference is made
to that certain Loan, Guaranty and Security Agreement dated as of March 30, 2018, entered into between Cinedigm Corp. (“Borrower”),
the other Loan Parties (together with Borrower, collectively “Loan Parties”), and East West Bank (“Bank”),
together with any and all amendments, modifications, riders and attachments thereto (collectively, the “Loan Agreement”) governing
certain financial accommodations which Bank has extended to Borrower. All capitalized terms used in this letter shall have the meanings
given to them in the Loan Agreement, unless specifically defined herein. Under the terms of the loan documents, your loan is about to
mature on June 30, 2021.


 


In order to provide
you smooth uninterrupted service under your credit facility while your request for a maturity extension of your loan to June 30,
2022 is being reviewed, we are pleased to inform you that you have been approved for an extension of the maturity date of your loan
to September 28, 2021.


 


This extension
should allow ample time for you to assemble and for us to review the financial information needed to consider your request for a renewal
and maturity extension to June 30, 2022.


 


We appreciate your business
and look forward to working with you on your request to renew this loan.


 


Very truly yours,


 


	/s/
    Robert Mostert, FVP	 
	Robert Mostert, FVP	 



 


 


 


 


135 N. Los Robles Ave.,
6th Floor, Pasadena, CA 91101 • Tel. 626.768.6924 • Fax 626.243.9810 • Nasdaq: EWBC
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLICACCOUNTING FIRM

 

TheBoard of Directors and ShareholdersOpen Energy Corporation:

 

Weconsent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements nos.333-139080 and 333-119222, each on Form S-8, of Open Energy Corporation ofour report dated September 15, 2008, relating to the consolidated balancesheets of Open Energy Corporation and its subsidiaries as of May 31, 2008and 2007, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’equity and cash flows for the years then ended, which report appears in the May 31,2008 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Open Energy Corporation.

 

/s/SQUAR, MILNER, PETERSON, MIRANDA & WILLIAMSON, LLPSan Diego, CaliforniaSeptember 15, 2008

 

1

----
#### VEASEY v. STATE.

No. 25622.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 16, 1952.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 20, 1952.

Second Motion for Rehearing Denied April 2, 1952.

Wm. H. Hamblen, Edna, for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is driving while intoxicated;: the punishment, a fine of $50.00.

We find the evidence sufficient to-support the verdict and proceed to pass upon appellant’s one bill of exception. It recites that appellant objected to the use of the venire on the grounds that he had not been furnished a list thereof prior to the trial and, further, that he objected to the use of the jury selected therefrom for the same reason. We find no certificate of the judge in the bill that the facts which constitute the basis of the objection are true. The mere recitation of an objection in a bill is not sufficient. It, therefore, follows that the bill presents nothing for review. Texas Digest, Criminal Law, <^31091(10)i; Garza v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 246 S.W.2d 635.

Appellant, in his brief, makes reference to a hearing on motion for new trial. No-record of such hearing appears before us.

Finding no reversible error, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

On Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing

DAVIDSON, Commissioner.

In addition to what was said in overruling appellant’s bill of exception relative to the jury panel, we'note that this record fails to reflect that any member of the jury which tried this case.was selected from the jury panel to which appellant objected. The members of the jury may have been selected from talesmen summoned by the sheriff.

The motion for rehearing is overruled.

Opinion approved by this Court.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Milton Lockhart, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Facelle, J.), rendered April 11, 1988, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (two counts), criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and criminal possession of marihuana in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We find unpersuasive the defendant’s contention that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial. Although the defendant’s counsel did not move to suppress certain physical evidence, that failure does not in itself establish ineffective assistance (see, *People v Belgrave,*143 AD2d 103; *People v White,*137 AD2d 859), especially where, as in this case, the record demonstrates that such a challenge to the admissibility of the evidence would have proved unavailing *(see, People v Perez,*133 AD2d 856; *see also, People v Bennett,*157 AD2d 630). Similarly, trial counsel’s strategy and tactics, while ultimately unsuccessful, were reasonable and do not sustain the defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance *(see generally, People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137). Counsel’s efforts, including a motion to controvert the search warrant, the tenacious cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, and the presentation of a viable defense to the most serious charges, sufficed to constitute "meaningful representation” *(People v Baldi, supra,*at 147) when the record is viewed as a whole.

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Sullivan, J. P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

WACO DIVISION 

WSOU INVESTMENTS LLC D/B/A 

BRAZOS LICENSING AND 

DEVELOPMENT,

 Plaintiff,

v. 

ZTE CORPORATION, ZTE (USA) INC. 

AND ZTE (TX), INC.,

 Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

C.A. NO. 6:20-cv-00487-ADA

C.A. NO. 6:20-cv-00488-ADA

C.A. NO. 6:20-cv-00489-ADA

C.A. NO. 6:20-cv-00490-ADA

C.A. NO. 6:20-cv-00491-ADA

C.A. NO. 6:20-cv-00492-ADA

C.A. NO. 6:20-cv-00493-ADA

C.A. NO. 6:20-cv-00494-ADA

C.A. NO. 6:20-cv-00495-ADA

C.A. NO. 6:20-cv-00496-ADA

C.A. NO. 6:20-cv-00497-ADA

[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A 

SUR-REPLY BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ REPLY BRIEF IN THE 

MOTION TO TRANSFER

This Court, having considered Plaintiff WSOU Investments LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing 

and Development’s Opposed Motion for Leave to File a Sur-Reply Brief in Response to 

Defendants’ Reply Brief in the Motion to Transfer to the Northern District of Texas, hereby 

ORDERS that this motion is DENIED.

SIGNED AND ENTERED this _______ day of ___________________, 2020.

________________________________

ALAN D. ALBRIGHT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 6:20-cv-00491-ADA Document 44-1 Filed 12/04/20 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

WSOU INVESTMENTS LLC

vs.

DELL TECHNOLOGIES INC., DELL

INC., EMC CORPORATION, AQUA

LICENSING, LLC

§

§

§

§

§

NO: WA:20-CV-00473-ADA

 Defendant

ORDER SETTING MOTION HEARING

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above entitled and numbered case is SET for

MOTION HEARING, in U.S. Magistrate Court, Courtroom No. 2, Third Floor, 800 Franklin Avenue,

Waco, Texas, on August 11, 2022 at 02:00 PM.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 11th day of August, 2022.

______________________________

DEREK T. GILLILAND

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 6:20-cv-00473-ADA-DTG Document 213 Filed 08/11/22 Page 1 of 1
#### Earl Gene TOMLIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 25381.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 20, 1951.

No attorney on appeal, for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The appeal is from a conviction for theft, with a sentence of five years in the penitentiary.

Appellant has filed an affidavit, in proper foito, requesting the dismissal of the appeal. Vhe request is granted.

The appeal is dismissed.
Exhibit 

Case 6:20-cv-00465-ADA Document 48-1 Filed 01/29/21 Page 1 of 2
From: Oliver Kevin R.

To: mark waltfairpllc.com

Cc: Barry Shelton; Sidley - WSOU Litigation; Ryan Loveless; Jim Etheridge; Yang Irene

Subject: RE: Re: WSOU - Microsoft - Markman Briefing

Date: Tuesday, December 29, 2020 5:48:59 PM

Attachments: image001.png

Counsel,

After further review, Microsoft no longer believes that the “AAA function capable” / “equipped to carry out authentication, authorization

and accounting (AAA) functions for the network” / “equipped to conduct authentication, authorization and accounting (AAA) functions

for the network” terms from the ’702 Patent require construction, and proposes dropping them from the parties’ briefing. In addition,

Microsoft proposes dropping the term “the AAA functions.” Microsoft no longer intends to pursue a construction of “the AAA

functions” requiring AAA to refer to all three of authentication, authorization, and accounting functions, and Microsoft does not contest

that, as recited in claim 1, “the AAA functions” has antecedent reference to the statement in the preamble, “... authentication,

authorization, and accounting functionality.”

Best,

Kevin

KEVIN R. OLIVER

Associate

SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP

787 Seventh Avenue

New York, NY 10019

+1 212 839 6721

kevin oliver@sidley com

www sidley.com

Case 6:20-cv-00465-ADA Document 48-1 Filed 01/29/21 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

JONATHAN VILLAREAL, )

individually and derivatively on )

behalf of ZROBLACK, LLC )

)

Plaintiff )

)

v. ) CIVIL NO. SA-20-CV-571-OLG

 ) 

)

JOHN SAENZ, MIGUEL )

VILLAREAL, JR., GUNN, LEE & )

CAVE, P.C. )

)

Defendants )

ORDER

The Court has considered the recommendation of United States Magistrate

Judge Richard B. Farrer, filed in the above-styled and numbered cause on November

30, 2022. Docket no. 87. The parties were served with a copy of the recommendation,

and no objections have been filed.1 The Court has reviewed the recommendation, and

the findings and conclusions therein are neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law.

It is therefore ORDERED that the recommendation of United States Magistrate

Judge Richard B. Farrer (docket no. 87) is hereby ACCEPTED pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1).

1A party desiring to object to a magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations must

file and serve written objections within 14 days after being served with the recommendations.

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2). Service is made to the last known address of the

party or his attorney, and service by mail is complete upon mailing. FED. R. CIV. P. 5(b).

FILED

DEPUTY 

CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

BY: ________________________________ January 11, 2023

 JU

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 91 Filed 01/11/23 Page 1 of 2
For the reasons stated in the recommendation, Defendant John Saenz’s Motion

for Attorney’s Fees (docket no. 85) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART and

Defendant Saenz is hereby awarded the sum of $38,766.00 in attorney’s fees as the

prevailing party in this case. 

SIGNED on the ____ day of January, 2023. 

____________________________________

ORLANDO L. GARCIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

11th

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 91 Filed 01/11/23 Page 2 of 2
#### CHADWICK v. STATE.

No. 25990.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 29, 1952.

C. S. Farmer, Waco, for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is the possession of whiskey in a dry area for the purpose of sale; the punishment, six months’ confinement in jail and a fine of $500.

The complaint and information herein charge the offense to have occurred on the “7th day of March, 19452.”

We cannot presume against the accused that the State meant something other than what they plead.

“The allegation of an impossible date as the date of the commission of the offense will render the indictment, information or complaint fatally defective.” Branch’s Ann.P.C., Sec. 434, p. 230.

Judgment is reversed and the prosecution ordered dismissed.
Record of Discussion 

(o :2.. -r 2otl.{-AJM~2 t q_-4 v 

Docket No. FAA-()0 15 ~ ~ J I Directorate Identifier: -AD 

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 

DAH Alan Macias 9/14/2014 Concur. 

DAH Sam Chan 9/14/2014 Concur. 

DAH John Gross 9/14/2014 Concur. 

Other/ Additional Information: 

DO NOT DELETE PAGE BREAK
**Exhibit31.1**

**Certification**

I, David Saltman, certifythat:

1. I have reviewed thisreport on Form 10-KSB of Open Energy Corporation;

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

3.          Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer asof, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.          Thesmall business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financialreporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for thesmall business issuer and have:

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

(b) [Paragraph omittedpursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and 34-47986.];

(c) Evaluated theeffectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

(d) Disclosed in thisreport any change in the small business issuer’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s fourthfiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the small business issuer’s internal control over financialreporting; and

5.          Thesmall business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, tothe small business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of the smallbusiness issuer’s Board of Directors (or persons performing similar functions):

(a) All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the small business issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether ornot material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over financialreporting.

Date: September 13, 2007
| /s/ David Saltman        |   |   |
|--------------------------|--------|--------|
| David Saltman            |   |
| Chief Executive  Officer |   |

 

----
|                                                                                                             
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                             
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                               
|View History: Annual                                                                                         
|View History: Annual                                                                                         
|View History:                                                                                                
|                                                                                                             
|California Federal Offshore Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Estimated Production from Reserves (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                                             
|                                                                                                             
|California Federal Offshore Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Estimated Production from Reserves (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                                             

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 22    
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 19     | 22     | 15     | 20     | 20     | 11     | 5      | 6      | 5      | 4     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 5      | 4      |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
Final Rule: Mandatory Reporting of Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems 

Meeting Documentation Interagency Meeting – Comments on Rule, September 2, 2010 Date Staff Contact Information 

(Name, email, phone #) 

Name of Organization (Attach list of all attendees names and emails if possible) 

Summary of Discussion (e.g., applicability, reporting 

requirements, etc.)

Written CommProvided? Did they also submit to Dock

9/2 Suzie Kocchi, 

Kocchi.suzanne@epa.gov

202-343-9387 

Agencies attending: OMB, EPA, SBA, BOEMRE, OECC 

A conference call was held to discuss interagency comments and questions on the final rule. 

N/A