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

# CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Sun City Industries, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-QSB for the three months ending March 31, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Tony Frudakis, President, 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 result of operations of the Company.

Date: August 19, 2004/s/ Tony FrudakisTony Frudakis Principal Executive
Officer andPrincipal Financial Officer
**EXHIBIT 31.2****CERTIFICATION**     I, Edward M. Carriero, Jr., Interim Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Sunair Services Corporation;     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:     (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;     (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, 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 financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):     (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and     (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: August 14, 2007           /s/ EDWARD M. CARRIERO, JR.       Edward M. Carriero, Jr.      *Interim Chief Financial Officer*
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 12, 2022

No. 04-22-00158-CR

Clarence Edward LIPPERT,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 216th Judicial District Court, Gillespie County, Texas

Trial Court No. 7076

Honorable Albert D. Pattillo, III, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The State’s appellee’s brief is due October 10, 2022. On October 5, 2022, the State filed 

a motion requesting a sixty-day extension of time. On October 7, 2022, we issued an order 

granting the motion and ordering the State to file its brief no later than December 9, 2022. Our 

order cautioned the State that further requests for an extension of time will not be granted absent 

extraordinary circumstances.

On December 9, 2022, the State filed a motion requesting a seven-day extension of time. 

The motion is GRANTED and the State is ORDERED to file its brief no later than December 

16, 2022. If the State does not file its brief on or before December 16th, this appeal is subject to 

being set for submission without benefit of the State’s brief. The State is further cautioned that 

counsel’s heavy case load or demanding work schedule is not an extraordinary circumstance 

warranting further requests for an extension of time.

_________________________________

Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 12th day of December, 2022.

__________________________

Michael A. Cruz, 

Clerk of Court
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 Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [NAFTA—04155]

Pursuant to Title V of the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (Public Law 103-182) concerning transitional adjustment assistance, hereinafter called (NAFTA-TAA), and in accordance with section 250(a), Subchapter D, Chapter 2, Title II, of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2273), an investigation was initiated on September 14, 2000 in response to a petition filed on behalf of workers at Alstom Power, Incorporated, Heat Recovery Steam Generators, Kings Mountain, North Carolina.

The petitioner requested that the petition for NAFTA-TAA be withdrawn. Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no purposes, and the investigation has been terminated.

      ( print page 62372)    
Signed at Washington, DC, this 6th day of October, 2000.

Linda G. Poole,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. 00-26723 Filed 10-17-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
**Exhibit 21.1**

**LISTOF SUBSIDIARIES**

| **Name of Subsidiary**                     | ** ** | ** ** | ** ** | **Jurisdiction of Organization** |
|--------------------------------------------|------------|------------|------------|----------------------------------|
| K-Sea OLP GP LLC                           |       | Delaware   |
| K-Sea Operating  Partnership L.P.          |       | Delaware   |
| K-Sea  Transportation Inc.                 |       | Delaware   |
| Norfolk  Environmental Services, Inc. |       | Delaware   |
| Inversiones Kara  Sea SRL                  |       | Venezuela  |
| K-Sea  Acquisition1, LLC                   |       | Delaware   |
| K-Sea  Acquisition2, LLC                   |       | Delaware   |
| Sea Coast  Transportation LLC              |       | Delaware   |
| K-Sea Canada  Holdings, Inc.          |       | Delaware   |
| K-Sea Canada Corp.                         |       | Canada     |

 

 

----
---

EXHIBIT 13.1 PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICERCERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Annual Report of Nevada Geothermal Power, Inc. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the year ended June 30, 2011 (the Annual Report), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, we, Brian D. Fairbank, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Andrew T. Studley, 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, to the best of our knowledge and belief: (1)
     the Annual 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 Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. Date: December 21, 2011/s/ Brian D. Fairbank
Name: Brian D. Fairbank
Title: President and Chief Executive
Date: December 21, 2011/s/ Andrew T. Studley
Name: Andrew T. Studley
Title: Chief Financial Officer


---
Exhibit 35.1

Annual Servicer Compliance Certificate

pursuant to

Section 3.9 of the Sale and Servicing Agreement

and

Item 1123 of
Regulation AB





USAA AUTO OWNER TRUST 2017-1





The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of USAA
Federal Savings Bank, as servicer (in such capacity, the Servicer) under the Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated as of September 20, 2017 (as amended and supplemented, or otherwise modified and in effect from time to time,
the Sale and Servicing Agreement), by and among USAA Auto Owner Trust 2017-1, USAA Acceptance, LLC, the Servicer and U.S. Bank National Association, as Indenture Trustee, does hereby certify
that:



| | 1. | A review of the activities of the Servicer during the period from September 20, 2017 through December 31, 2017, and of its performance under the Sale and Servicing Agreement was conducted under my supervision.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations in all material respects under the Sale and Servicing Agreement throughout such period.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



---

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate on behalf of the Servicer this 28th day of March, 2018.



/s/ Thomas CianelliName: Thomas
CianelliTitle: Senior Vice President, Treasurer
#### Ex parte MARTIN.

No. 25311.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 16, 1951.

*392Claud J. Carter, Claud J. Carter, Jr., San Antonio, for appellant.

Harvey L. Hardy, Acting Crim. Dist. Atty., Richard J. Woods, Asst. Crim. Dist. Atty., and Joseph F. Brown, Asst. Crim. Dist. Atty., all of San Antonio, George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Judge.

Upon a plea of guilty before the court, a jury being waived, relator was on March 26, 1951, convicted of the offense of assault with intent to rob and was sentenced to serve a term of two years in the penitentiary.

Thereafter, relator filed his application for habeas corpus and same was set for hearing by Judge W. W. McCrory, who after hearing the application and the evidence therein refused to grant the writ.

Relator gave notice of appeal from such order of the district judge, and the record is before us on such appeal.

Art. 119, Vernon’s Ann. C.C.P., provides the exclusive procedure for habeas corpus seeking release of a prisoner after final conviction in a felony case.

Judge McCrory, having refused the application, no right of appeal exists. See Ex parte Prosser, 149 Tex.Cr.App. 319, 194 S.W.2d 89; Ex parte Hubbard, Tex.Cr.App., 225 S.W.2d 196.

The appeal is dismissed.
#### WYNN v. STATE.

No. 26457.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 17, 1953.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

WOODLEY, Judge.

The conviction is for possession of whiskey in a dry area for the purpose of sale, the punishment a fine of $300 and six months in jail.

There is no statement of facts.

A challenge to the array of jurors was filed alleging failure to comply with Art. 2094 R.C.S., Vernon’s Ann.Civ.St., in filling the jury wheel and it was stipulated that the evidence adduced upon a similar motion in Williams v. State, Tex.Cr.App., -S.W.2d-, should be made a part of the record in this cause.

Without passing upon the sufficiency of the stipulation, here, as in the Williams case, there is nothing to show that the jurors who rendered the verdict against appellant were selected from a panel of jurors drawn from the jury wheel.

The judgment is affirmed.
<Page>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 7.3


                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 Canadian Superior Energy Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 40-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Greg Noval, 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:

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

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

Dated: May 20, 2005

                                           /s/ GREG NOVAL
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Greg Noval
                                           Chief Executive Officer
**Exhibit
      32.1**







**Certificate
      of the Chief Executive Officer and**


**Chief
      Financial Officer pursuant to Section 906 of**


**the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**




I,
      Marc
      Ebersole, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2003, that the Annual Report of
      Biostem, Inc. on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006
      fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in this Form
      10-K
      fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results
      of
      operations of Biostem, Inc.










By:       
      /s/ MARC EBERSOLE


Name:   Marc Ebersole


Title:     Chief Executive Officer and
      Chief


Financial Officer (Principal


Accounting Officer)
#### LEFTWICH v. WILSON.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

June 4, 1954.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 1, 1954.

Marshall A. Dawson, Versailles, for appellant.

Marcus C. Redwine, Winchester, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Anna Leftwich, has moved for an appeal from a judgment of the Wood-ford Circuit Court by which appellee, John B. Wilson’s administratrix, was awarded the sum of $1,770 as damages for breach of contract.

We are of opinion that the facts in this case present a landlord-tenant share cropping case, and may not be properly classified as a real estate lease for a period of one year. The entire contract was capable of being performed within a year from the day upon which it was undertaken, because the agreement was simply to raise crops during the growing season. The statute of frauds,, therefore, has no application. Sutton v. Staton, 275 Ky. 658, 122 S.W.2d 509; Burden v. Lucas, 44 S.W. 86, 19 Ky.Law Rep. 1581; Ford Lumber & Mfg. Co. v. Cobb, 138 Ky. 174, 127 S.W. 763; and East Tennessee Telephone Co. v. Paris Electric Co., 156 Ky. 762, 162 S.W. 530.

The motion for an appeal is overruled and the judgment is affirmed.
Exhibit 10.8


 


Explanatory Note: This document has been translated
from the Chinese-language original for reference purposes only. While this English translation is believed to be generally accurate, it
is subject to, and qualified by, in its entirety, the Chinese-language original. Such Chinese-language original shall be the controlling
document for all purposes.


 


Purchase Advance Payment Contract


 


Party A (payer): Anhui Aokai Fa Grease Technology Co., Ltd.


Party B (Payee): Shucheng County Tianbao Camellia Oil Professional
Cooperative


 


Party B is Party A’s raw material supplier. In order to reduce
operating costs and enhance the partnership between the two parties, Party A agrees to prepay certain prices for the purchase of corresponding
raw materials for Party B’s obligation to provide Party A with Camellia seeds. After full negotiation by both parties, the following
contracts have been concluded:


 


1. Purpose of advance payment: Party B can only use the advance payment
paid by Party A to purchase camellia seed raw materials, and shall not use it for other purposes.


 


2. Prepaid amount: RMB 13,000,000


 


3. As Party B’s business scope also involves Camellia seed oil,
Party A may also provide Party B with Camellia seed oil of the same value as the advance payment to offset the advance payment. The price
of Camellia seed oil shall be in accordance with Party A’s regulations.


 


4. Repayment method: Party B will deduct the advance payment in the
form of Camellia seeds or equivalent currency to Party A. The repayment period shall not exceed twelve months per year, and special circumstances
shall be negotiated separately.


 


5. Party B promises to provide Party A with Camellia Seeds at a price
that is 2% lower than the actual price of Camellia Seeds on the actual delivery date. After the prepayment is deducted, the settlement
will be based on the actual market price.


 


6. If Party B fails to use the advance payment as required by the agreement,
Party A has the right to recover the advance payment and impose a penalty interest of three thousandths per day for the breached part.


 


7. For matters not covered, the two parties can negotiate and conclude
a supplementary contract. The supplementary contract has the same legal effect as this contract. Any party who fails to negotiate can
bring a lawsuit to the people's court in China.


 


8. This contract is valid for one year, and it will automatically terminate
when it expires.


 


9. This contract has two copies, with each party holding one copy,
and it will take effect from the date of signing.


 


/s/ Anhui Aokai Fa Grease Technology Co., Ltd.


Party A: Anhui Aokai Fa Grease Technology Co., Ltd.


Date: May 7, 2020


 


/s/ Shucheng County Tianbao Camellia Oil Professional Cooperative


Party B: Shucheng County Tianbao Camellia Oil Professional Cooperative


Date: May 7, 2020
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                          82,228
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,440,286
<ALLOWANCES>                                    35,031
<INVENTORY>                                  1,875,054
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,471,156
<PP&E>                                       4,324,594
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,982,237
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,813,513
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,910,505
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  2,063,149
<COMMON>                                     2,952,344
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,813,513
<SALES>                                      4,794,777
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,794,777
<CGS>                                        2,605,703
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,605,703
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,938,851
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              36,204
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                214,019
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            214,019
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   214,019
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .03
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 201 (Tuesday, October 17, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61317-61318]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-26556]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ES01-3-000]


MDU Resources Group, Inc.; Notice of Application

October 10, 2000.
    Take notice that on October 4, 2000, MDU Resources Group, Inc. (MDU 
Resources) submitted an application pursuant to section 204 of the 
Federal Power Act seeking authorization to issue a combination of 
securities not to exceed in the aggregate $750,000,000 and not to 
exceed the following amounts:
    (1) $750,000,000 of common stock;
    (2) $112,500,000 of preferred stock;
    (3) $225,000,000 of New Mortgage Bonds, Senior Notes, debentures, 
subordinated debentures, and/or guarantees from time to time;
    (4) $225,000,000 of stock purchase contracts, stock purchase units, 
and/or warrants; and
    (5) $225,000,000 of other securities, including hybrid securities 
or hybrid securities guaranties.
    MDU Resources seeks authorization to vary the issuance amount for 
each of the above types of securities as long as the aggregate amount 
of MDU Resources' securities issued does not exceed $750,000,000. The 
securities are proposed to be issued from time to time over a two-year 
period.
    MDU Resources seeks a waiver of the Commission's competitive 
bidding and

[[Page 61318]]

negotiated placement requirements in 18 CFR 34.2.
    MDU Resources also requests for this authorization to supercede and 
replace the authorizing granted in Docket Nos. ES99-18-000 and ES99-18-
001.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions and 
protests should be filed on or before October 31, 2000. Protests will 
be considered by the Commission to determine the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to 
intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on 
the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-
2222 for assistance).

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-26556 Filed 10-16-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M