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 Form 10-Q of Worldwide Biotech & Pharmaceutical Company
(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2010, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, Wenxia Guo, 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 the best of my knowledge and belief:





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





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











/s/ Wenxia
Guo


Wenxia
Guo


Chief
Executive Officer


August
13, 2010
#### IRVING v. STATE.

No. 26466.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 3, 1953.

Paul W. Anderson, Marshall, for appellant: ■ ■

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

WOODLEY, Judge, i

On a plea of guilty' before the court, appellant was assessed a fine of $100 for the offense of possessing whisky in a container to which no tax stamp was affixed showing payment of tax due the State, in violation of Arts. 666-17(13) — 666-3a(4)— 666-2Id, subd. 5, V.A.P.C. '

The court assessed the minimum punishment provided for the offense charged. See Art. 666-41, P.C.

There is no statement of facts in the record showing the evidence heard on appellant’s motion for new trial or on the trial proper, if any evidence was offered.

Appellant’s bills' of exception assert that he was coerced into entering his plea of guilty by a threat of the arresting officer that if he did not plead guilty and get out on a $100 fine he would take him to Federal Court where he would get a greater fine, and certainly a jail sentence. There is' no certification by the trial court that the facts alleged are true.

Nowhere is it alleged or claimed that appellant was not in fact, guilty of the offense to which he pleaded guilty, and there is nothing to show that he was induced to so plead by any coercion, misrepresentation or fraud.

The trial court did not err in denying appellant a new trial upon the ground that he was coerced into pleading guilty.

The judgment is affirmed.
Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 8-1 Filed 03/24/20 Page 1 of 2
Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 8-1 Filed 03/24/20 Page 2 of 2
---

EXHIBIT 4.143

Humboldt CountyAssessor's Parcel No. N/A -unpatented mining claims 
Recorded at the request of 
And when recorded return to: 
Desert Valley GoldCo.Suite 900-409 Granville St. 
Vancouver, B.C. V6C 1C2The undersigned affirms that this instrument does 
Not contain the social security number of any person.



Quitclaim Deed
(Blue Claims)

Nevada Eagle Resources LLC ("Grantor") quitclaims to Desert Valley Gold ("Grantee") and its successors and assigns forever, all of Grantor's right, title and interest in and to the unpatented mining claims situated in Humboldt County, Nevada, more particularly described in Exhibit A attached to and by this reference incorporated in this Quitclaim Deed.

|              |  |             | 
|------------- |  | ----------- | 
|April1st,2009 |  | Signed      | 
|              |  | John L. Key | 

|                 |   
|---------------- | --
|STATEOF NEVADA,  | ) 
|                 | ss
|COUNTY OF WASHOE | ) 



This Quitclaim Deed was acknowledged before me on April1st2009 by John L. Key

|                 |  | 
|---------------- |  | 
|Signed           | 
|Caren M. Idzinga | 
|                 | 

---

Exhibit ABlue ClaimsHumboldt County, Nevada

|                           |                     |                            
|-------------------------- | ------------------- | ---------------------------
|Blue Mountain Project      |                     |                            
|Name                       | BLM Serial number   | County document            
|Blue 1 through Blue 10     | NMC 1001318-1001327 | 2008-9784 through 2008-9793
|Blue 11 through Blue 27    | NMC 1003767-1003783 | 2009-498 through 2009-514  
|Blue 48,62,63 and 64       | NMC 1003784-1003787 | 2009-515 through 2009-518  
|(31 total claims-Humboldt) |                     |                            

---
Exhibit 10.12


 


SUBSCRIPTION AGREEMENT


 


	To:	The	Board of Directors of Larkspur Health Acquisition Corp.



 


The undersigned hereby subscribes for 9,584 shares
of Class B common stock, par value $0.0001 per share (the “Shares”) of Larkspur Health Acquisition Corp, a Delaware
corporation (the “Company”). In consideration for the issue of the Shares, the undersigned hereby agrees and undertakes
to pay $111 to the Company.


 


The undersigned agrees to take the Shares subject
to the Certificate of Incorporation of the Company and authorizes you to enter the following name and address in the stockholder ledger
of the Company:


 


	 	Name:	Raj Mehra, Ph.D., J.D.	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	Address:	209 Lukes Woods Road

New Canaan, CT 06840	 



 


	/s/ Raj Mehra, Ph.D., J.D.	 
	Raj Mehra, Ph.D., J.D.	 
	 	 
	Dated:	4/30/2021	 
	 	 
	Accepted:	 
	 	 
	Larkspur Health Acquisition Corp.	 
	 	 
	Signed:	/s/ Daniel J. O’Connor	 
	Name:	Daniel J. O’Connor	 
	Title:	Chairman; Chief Executive Officer	 
	 	 	 
	Dated:	April 30, 2021
#### DUNN v. STATE.

No. 25572.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 19, 1951.

Byron Chappell, Lubbock, for appellant.

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

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Transporting alcoholic beverages in a dry area is the offense; the punishment, a fine .of $100 and thirty days in jail.

Appellant was apprehended driving an .automobile which contained a case of beer .and a considerable quantity of whisky and gin. The case of beer was visible to the arresting officer as he approached the automobile.

Appellant’s defense as shown by his testimony was that he had borrowed the automobile from J. D. Osborne, the owner, to go for something to eat and that he (appellant) did not know the beer and liquors were in the car.

This defense was pertinently submitted by the trial court in his charge to the jury.

Upon direct examination of the arresting officer, the state proved by him that to his questioning of him at the time of the arrest regarding ownership of the beer, the appellant replied that he did not know whose it was.

Appellant insists that such statement on his, appellant’s, part constituted an exculpatory statement which the state was required to disprove in order to convict.

The statement was not exculpatory. Ownership of beer and liquor in appellant was not an element necessary to constitute him guilty of transporting it. His guilt was therefore in no event dependent upon his knowledge as to the ownership.

The facts abundantly support the jury’s conclusion of guilt.

The judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 7543** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v.
JOHN MARQUIS JOHNSON , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Florence

. R. Bryan Harwell , District Judge. ( 4:08

- cr
- 01258

- RBH

- 5 )

Submitted : January 23, 2014 Decided: February 5, 2014

Before KING and DUNCAN , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

John Marquis Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CU RIAM: John Marquis Johnson appeals the district court’s text
order denying his motion for a reduction of his sentence.
Johnson argues that he should be resentenced in light of this

Court’s decision in United States v. Simmons , 649 F.3d 237 (4th
Cir. 20 11) (en banc). However, Johnson’s claim is not
cognizable under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2012). Accordingly, we
affirm the district court’s order denying relief. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### KNOX v. CAMPBELL et al.

No. 13573.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Dallas.

Oct. 13, 1933.

W. C. Holcombe and H. M. Harrington, Jr., both of Longview, for appellant.

J. N. Townsend, of Dallas, for appellees.

BOND, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal from an order of the district court of Dallas County overruling appellant’s plea of privilege. The suit involves a promissory note alleged payable in Dallas County, and to have been executed and delivered by appellant. The note is fully described in the suit, and judgment is sought for its face value with interest and attorney’s fees as provided therein. In due form appellant interposed his plea of privilege to be sued in Gregg County, Texas, and under oath specially denied the execution of the note in suit. On trial the court overruled the plea and accordingly entered judgment.

Appellant raises two points for reversal of the order of the trial court: First, that plaintiff’s cause of action is one primarily to establish the note alleged to have been lost by parol secondary evidence; hence the suit is not upon a written instrument within the purview of Subd. 5 of the venue statute, Art. 1995, R.S. Vernon’s Ann.Civ. St. art. 1995, subd. 5; and, second, that the evidence offered by appellees wholly failed to establish prima facie the note’s execution by appellant. We think the points of error are not well taken.

 The primary purpose of the suit is to recover on the note alleged to have been executed by appellant; and, to establish its terms and conditions, appellees were obliged to account for its absence— lost, misplaced or destroyed — to offer secondary evidence of its contents. The fact that a written instrument on which suit is based is lost, and secondary evidence is necessary to establish its contents, does not make the suit one in parol. It nevertheless is one on a written contract. Appellant did not challenge by pleadings or proof the fact that the note was lost; hence the unchallenged predicate was laid for the introduction of secondary evidence *275to establish the basis of appellee’s suit. The filing of the plea of non est factum by appellant effectively placed the burden of proof upon appellees, not only to prove the terms and conditions of the written instrument, but also its execution by appellant. These were issues of fact necessary to be established on hearing of the plea of privilege, as will be on trial of the case on the merits.

On the issue raised by the plea of non est factum appellees offered several witnesses who testified that, from their long acquaintance with the appellant and his signature, they knew his signature, and that the signature on the note in suit was that of the appellant. ' They were not offered as experts on handwriting, nor did appellees hinge their testimony on doubtful conclusions. These witnesses were positive in their testimony. Indeed, appellant testified that he did not execute the note, but the court, on such controverting evidence, determined the issue. Thus we are not at liberty to say that the trial court was wrong in his conclusion.

The judgment of the court below is affirmed.

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 548 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 548

     To repeal a rule of the National Mediation Board relating to 
                  representation election procedures.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 8, 2011

     Mr. Gingrey of Georgia (for himself, Mr. Kline, and Mr. Issa) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                   Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To repeal a rule of the National Mediation Board relating to 
                  representation election procedures.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Restoring Democracy in the Workplace 
Act''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF RULE.

    Effective January 1, 2011, the rule prescribed by the National 
Mediation Board relating to representation election procedures 
published on May 11, 2010 (95 Fed. Reg. 26062) and revising sections 
1202 and 1206 of title 29, Code of Federal Regulations, shall have no 
force or effect.
                                 <all>
```
#### ROBISON v. KELLY.

No. 11828.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

March 17, 1948.

Aubrey Robison, of Daingerfield, in pro. per.

Lon D. Herbert, of Alice, for appellee.

MURRAY, Justice.

Appellee’s motion to dismiss this cause will be granted. Judgment in this cause was rendered in the trial court on June 20, 1947; the writ of error bond was filed herein on December 27, 1947, which was some seven days too late.

Rule 359, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, provides for the filing of a petition for a writ of error.

Rule 361, T.R.C.P., provides that at the time of the filing of the petition for a writ of error the appellant shall-file with the clerk an appeal bond, or affidavit in lieu thereof, as provided for in the Rules.

Rule 363, T.R.C.P., provides that writ of error is perfected when the petition and bond, or affidavit in lieu thereof, is filed.

Rule 354, T.R.C.P.', makes it the duty of the clerk of the trial court to estimate and fix the probable amount of the costs of the court below, the Court of Civil Appeals and the Supreme Court and requires-that an appeal bond or writ of error bond shall be in double the amount so fixed by the clerk.

Appellant states that he forwarded to the clerk of the District Court of Jim Wells County a petition for a writ of error, together with a writ of error bond in the sum of $100. He does not state that he had previously asked the clerk to fix the amount of probable costs on appeal, as is required by Rule 354, and that such clerk had fixed such amount at fifty dollars. He does state, however, that on December 17, 1947, the clerk wired him that the bond was not in a sufficient amount and that a bond in the sum of $200 should be furnished. The bond in the sum of $200 was not sent to the clerk until after the six months’ period had elapsed, within which he could have perfected his appeal by writ of error.

No writ of error bond was filed, and thus appellant lost his right to appeal by writ of error, unless he is able to show that it was the ministerial duty of the clerk to approve and file the bond which he sent to her prior to December 20, 1947.

The record, instead of showing it was the clerk’s ministerial duty to file and *630approve the first bond in the sum of $100, shows that she correctly refused to do so, because it was an insufficient amount.

The failure to file a writ of error bond or affidavit in lieu thereof, within the six months’ period allowed for perfecting an appeal by writ of error is fatal to the right of appeal by writ of error. Art. 2255, Vernon’s Ann.Civ.Stats.; Maples v. Service Mutual Insurance Company, Tex.Civ.App., 169 S.W.2d 500; Greer v. Poulter, Tex.Civ.App., 189 S.W.2d 883.

No bond having been filed within the six months’ period and no bond in the correct amount having been tendered to the trial clerk within that period, appellant failed to perfect his appeal by writ of error and this court acquired no jurisdiction of this cause. Ryan v. City National Bank & Trust Company, Tex.Civ.App., 186 S.W.2d 747.

Accordingly, appellee’s motion to dismiss will be granted and the cause dismissed.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 276 

To prohibit United States assistance to the country of Egypt. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 15, 2013 

Mr. BUCHANAN (for himself, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Mr. BROUN of Georgia, 

Mr. JONES, and Mr. SCHWEIKERT) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs 

A BILL 

To prohibit United States assistance to the country of Egypt. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON ASSISTANCE TO THE COUN4 TRY OF EGYPT. 

5 (a) PROHIBITION.—Notwithstanding any other provi6 sion of law, no funds made available to any Federal de7 partment or agency may be used to provide assistance to 

8 the country of Egypt. 

9 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This Act takes effect on the 

10 date of the enactment of this Act and applies with respect 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with 
2 

•HR 276 IH

1 to funds made available to any Federal department or 

2 agency for any fiscal year after fiscal year 2013. 

Æ 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with
Exhibit 11

                       STERLING BANCORP AND SUBSIDIARIES
                Statement Re: Computation of Per Share Earnings

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                          Three Months Ended                 Six Months Ended
                                               June 30,                          June 30,
                                     ----------------------------      ----------------------------
                                         2004             2003             2004             2003
                                     -----------      -----------      -----------      -----------
<S>                                  <C>              <C>              <C>              <C>
Net income                           $ 6,719,599      $ 5,860,002      $13,180,108      $11,706,425
Less: preferred dividends                     --           31,351               --           63,144
                                     -----------      -----------      -----------      -----------
Net income available for common
  shareholders and adjusted for
  diluted computation                $ 6,719,599      $ 5,828,651      $13,180,108      $11,643,281
                                     ===========      ===========      ===========      ===========
Weighted average common
  shares outstanding                  15,332,631       14,850,210       15,234,781       14,846,243
Add dilutive effect of:
    Stock options                        701,898          604,033          718,202          588,059
    Convertible preferred stock               --          229,222           64,123          230,405
                                     -----------      -----------      -----------      -----------
Adjusted for assumed diluted
  computation                         16,034,529       15,683,465       16,017,106       15,664,707
                                     ===========      ===========      ===========      ===========

Basic earnings per share             $      0.44      $      0.39      $      0.87      $      0.78
                                     ===========      ===========      ===========      ===========
Diluted earnings per share           $      0.42      $      0.37      $      0.82      $      0.74
                                     ===========      ===========      ===========      ===========
</TABLE>


                                       86
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 203 (Thursday, October 19, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 62741]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-26857]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome Research 
Review Committee.
    Date: November 16, 2000.
    Time: 8:30 am to 5:00 pm.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Georgetown Holiday Inn, 2101 Wisconsin Ave, N.W., 
Washington, DC 20007.
    Contact Person: Paula S. Strickland, PhD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural 
Activities, NIAID, NIH, Room 2156, 6700-B Rockledge Drive, MSC 7610, 
Bethesda, MD 20892-7610, 301-496-2550.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, 
Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, 
Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)

    Dated: October 12, 2000.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 00-26857 Filed 10-18-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
Exhibit 13.1

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 annual report on Form 20-F of Nevada Geothermal Power Inc. for the year ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I hereby 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 annual report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and                                   
|2. | The information contained in the annual report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Nevada Geothermal Power Inc.



Date: January 15, 2007

/s/ Brian D. FairbankBrian D. Fairbank
President and Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Nevada Geothermal Power Inc. and will be retained by Nevada Geothermal Power Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.