alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.01   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 Endeavor Power Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Tammy-Lynn McNabb, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 result of operations of the Company.      /s/ Tammy-Lynn McNabb By: Tammy-Lynn McNabb Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer  Dated: April 15, 2010  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 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 217 (Wednesday, November 8, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67019-67020]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-28582]


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

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

[Notice (00-133)]


NASA Advisory Council, Minority Business Resource Advisory 
Committee; Meeting

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

ACTION: Notice of Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public 
Law 92-463, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration announce a forthcoming meeting of the NASA Advisory 
Council, Minority Business Resource Advisory Committee.

DATES: Tuesday, December 5, 2000, 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., and 
Wednesday, December 6, 2000, 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon.

ADDRESSES: NASA Headquarters, 300 E Street, SW, Washington, DC 20546-
0001. Room MIC-7.

[[Page 67020]]


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Ralph C. Thomas III, Code K, 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Room 9K70, 300 E Street, 
SW, Washington, DC 20546-0001, (202) 358-2088.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting will be open to the public up to 
the seating capacity of the room. The agenda for the meeting is as 
follows:

--Overview of NASA
--Small Disadvantaged Business Participation in Major NASA Contracts
--Report on Mentor-Protege Program
--Action Items
--NASA Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) Program Update
--Report of Chair
--Public Comment
--Report from MBRAC Sub Panels
--Status of Best Practices for Teaming Agreements
--Report on SDB Participation on Agency-Wide Contract(s)

    It is imperative that the meeting be held on these dates to 
accommodate the scheduling priorities of the key participants. Visitors 
will be requested to sign a visitor's register.

    Dated: October 31, 2000.
Beth M. McCormick,
Advisory Committee Management Officer, National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration.
[FR Doc. 00-28582 Filed 11-7-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7510-01-U
# AGENCY: 

Health Resources and Services Administration, HHS. 

# ACTION: 

Notice. 

# SUMMARY: 

The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) is announcing its decision to withdraw the proposal to impose a grant award requirement that would have required HRSA grantees listed in section 340B of the Public Health Service Act and Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) Look-Alikes to participate in the 340B Drug Pricing Program or provide good cause for non-participation. Instead of the proposed grant requirement, HRSA will add a statement to the Notice of Grant Award (NGA) concerning the need for grantees to determine the appropriateness of their drug purchasing practices under applicable cost principles. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Captain Robert Staley, the Office of Drug Pricing, Bureau of Primary Health Care, Health Resources and Services Administration, 10th Floor, East West Towers, 4350 East-West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; Phone (800) 628-6297; Fax (301) 594-4982. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

                    The proposed grant requirement for eligible HRSA grantee and FQHC Look-Alike participation in the 340B Drug Pricing Program was announced in the                     **Federal Register**                     at 63 FR 56656 on October 22, 1998. A period of 60 days was established to allow interested parties to submit comments. HRSA received 21 comments. In light of the concerns expressed about the potential adverse impact of the proposed grant requirement, HRSA has decided not to institute the requirement at this time. Instead, HRSA will implement another administrative option to increase participation in the 340B Drug Pricing Program: a statement in the HRSA Notice of Grant Award (NGA) encouraging those grantees not participating in the 340B Program to determine whether their drug purchasing practices meet Federal requirements regarding reasonable and cost effective purchasing. (                    *See*42 CFR part 50, subpart E, and OMB Circulars A-122 and A-87 regarding cost principles). If grantees can obtain drugs through the Drug Pricing Program at lower cost, it would be reasonable to take advantage of such cost savings. This policy will be implemented during the fiscal year (FY) 2000 grant award cycle.                 

Dated: January 3, 2000. 

Claude Earl Fox, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 00-2862 Filed 2-8-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4160-15-P
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

IN THE MATTER OF THE PERSONAL RESTRAINT OF: AENOY PHASAY, Petitioner. No.76082-3-1 DIVISION ONE UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED: MAY 1 4 2018 PER CURIAM — Aenoy Phasay seeks relieffrom his convictions for second degree intentional murder and second degree felony murder. He contends,and the State concedes,that the convictions violate double jeopardy and that the matter must be remanded with directions "to vacate the lesser offense." State v. Hughes, 166 Wn.2d 675,686 n.13, 212 P.3d 558 (2009)(discussing factors for determining lesser offense). Although the trial court merged the two convictions for sentencing purposes and expressly sentenced Phasay for only one conviction, a conviction carries an onus that, in and of itself, constitutes punishmentfor purposes ofdouble jeopardy analysis. State v. Womac, 160 Wn.2d 643,656-61, 160 P.3d 40 (2007); State v. Turner, 169 Wn.2d 448,455,238 P.3d 461 (2010). Accordingly,we accept the concession oferror and remand for vacation of the lesser offense. Remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

FOR THE COURT: 

# em

- 2c,T1

,
#### Woodworth, Appellant, *v.*Industrial Commission of Ohio, Appellee.

(No. 28429

Decided January 15, 1941.)

*Mr. George 8. Marshall*and *Mr. George B. Marshall,*for appellant.

*Mr. Thomas J. Herbert,*attorney general, and *Mr. E. P. Felher,*for appellee.

It is ordered and adjudged that said appeal as of right be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the reason no debatable constitutional question is involved in said cause.

*Appeal dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Turner, Williams, Matthias, Hart, Zimmerman and Bettman, JJ., concur.
#### George HARRIS, Movant, v. VALLEY MOTORS, Inc., Opposed.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

June 13, 1952.

Hiram H. Owens, Barbourville, for appellant.

Thomas F. Young, Corbin, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Motion for an appeal from the Knox Circuit Court. Judgment for the possession of an automobile or its value, $405.24. The points raised for reversal have been carefully considered. We find nothing to justify a reversal.

Judgment affirmed.
Order entered February 4, 2019

In The



## Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 18

- 01258

- CV

CATHERINE ROSSI, Appellant

V.

CAE INC. AND CAE SIM UFLITE, INC., Appellee s

On Appeal fr om the 14th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 17

- 02898



### O RDER

Before the Court is appellant’s February 1, 2019 second motion for an extension of time

to file a brief. We GRANT the motion and extend the time to February 15, 2019

.

/s/ BILL WHITEHILL

JUSTICE
EXHIBIT 32.1

                   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) OR
                     RULE 15d-14(b) and 18 U.S.C. Sec.1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of HyperDynamics Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Kent P. Watts, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Sec.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.

Date: November 11, 2004                             By:  /s/ Kent P. Watts
                                                         -----------------
                                                         Kent P. Watts
                                                         Chief Executive Officer


<PAGE>
Case 3:22-cr-00094-X Document 62 Filed 01/12/23 Page 1 of 7 PageID 152
Case 3:22-cr-00094-X Document 62 Filed 01/12/23 Page 2 of 7 PageID 153
Case 3:22-cr-00094-X Document 62 Filed 01/12/23 Page 3 of 7 PageID 154
Case 3:22-cr-00094-X Document 62 Filed 01/12/23 Page 4 of 7 PageID 155
Case 3:22-cr-00094-X Document 62 Filed 01/12/23 Page 5 of 7 PageID 156
Case 3:22-cr-00094-X Document 62 Filed 01/12/23 Page 6 of 7 PageID 157
Case 3:22-cr-00094-X Document 62 Filed 01/12/23 Page 7 of 7 PageID 158
#### John BRANHAM, Movant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Opposed.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Dec. 21, 1951.

H. R. Burke, Prestonsburg, for appellant.

A. E. Funk, Atty. Gen., William F. Simpson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal denied. Judgment affirmed.

COMBS, J., not sitting.
Exhibit 99.2
                                                                    ------------

                            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 Western Power & Equipment
Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended October 31,
2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Mark J. Wright, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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 results of operations of the
Company.

/s/ Mark J. Wright
Chief Financial Officer
December 26, 2002
#### GARZA v. STATE.

No. 25510.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 19, 1951.

Hector de Pena, Thurman Lee Mulhol-lan, Corpus Christi, for appellant.

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

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is possession of marijuana, a narcotic drug; the punishment, two years in the penitentiary.

Appellant was arrested and searched by police officers who observed him coming out of a dark alley in the business district of Corpus Christi shortly after midnight.

Officer Wilkins testified that he and his fellow officer searched appellant and found a few traces of what he believed to be marijuana in the cuffs of his trousers and a marijuana cigarette in his hat band.

Appellant relics upon two bills of exception. Bill No. 1 complains of the testimony regarding the search, and Bill No. 2 of the marijuana cigarette as an exhibit.

Both bills set out the ground of the obj ection as follows: “ * * * that the results of such search of the defendant was inadmissible under the provisions of Article 727a, Code of Criminal Procedure of the State of Texas [Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P.], in that the arrest of the defendant was an illegal arrest as being in violation of Articles 212, 213, 215, and 217, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, said arrest being made without a warrant, and that a proper predicate had not been laid under Article 725b of the Penal Code of Texas [Vernon’s Ann. P.C.], so as to authorize a search of the defendant * * * ”.

Nowhere in the bills does the trial court certify that in fact the officers had no search warrant, that in fact the officers had no warrant of arrest, or that in fact a *636proper predicate had not been laid for the search.

It follows that the bills are deficient and show no reversible error. See Martinez v. State, Tex.Cr.R., 246 S.W.2d 633, this day decided and cases there cited.

No reversible error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.
Exhibit 32.2 Certification by the Chief Financial Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002  In connection with the Annual Report of HepaLife Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on the Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Harmel Rayat, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (i) the Report filed by the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (ii) The information contained in that Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company on the dates and for the periods presented therein.  HEPALIFE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.Date: March 30, 2007By:/s/ Harmel S. RayatHarmel S. Rayat
Chief Financial Officer  This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. 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 the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
ORIGINAL 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

DA 24-0266 

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

AARON LEE OLBRICHT, 

Defendant and Appellant. 

ORDER 

F:LED 

MAY - 7 2024 

cleo"^ ES of Sof,Pre7"00<3 

On his own behalf, Aaron Lee Olbricht has filed a verified Petition for an Out-ofTime Appeal, indicating that he failed to file a timely Notice of Appeal because he "was 

misinformed that [he] could file [an] appeal on [his] sentence review." Olbricht includes 

a copy of the January 4, 2024 Sentencing Order issued in the Fifth Judicial District Court, 

Beaverhead County. Olbricht also moves this Court for appointment of counsel. 

We observe that Olbricht served a copy of his Petition to the County Attorney, but 

he did not include service to the Attorney General, pursuant to M. R. App. P. 10(2). 

M. R. App. P. 4(6) allows this Court to grant an out-of-time appeal "[i]n the 

infrequent harsh case and under extraordinary circumstances amounting to a gross 

miscarriage of justice[.]" 

Olbricht has recent convictions and sentences. This Court concludes that Olbricht 

is entitled to an appeal and that he may be entitled to representation of counsel. Section 

46-8-104, MCA. Therefore, 

IT IS ORDERED that Olbricht's Petition for an Out-of-Time Appeal is GRANTED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Olbricht's Motion for Appointment of Counsel 

is GRANTED. The Appellate Defender Division shall have thirty days from the date of 

this Order within which either to file a Notice of Appeal or a Motion to Rescind this Order 

Appointing Counsel. If Olbricht qualifies for appointed counsel, the Appellate Defender 

Division shall immediately order the appropriate transcripts. 

05/07/2024

Case Number: DA 24-0266
The Clerk of the Supreme Court is directed to provide a copy of this Order to: 

Attorney General Austin Knudsen with a copy of Olbricht's Petition; counsel of record; 

the Appellate Defender Division, and Aaron Lee Olbricht personally. 

DATED this Y- —day of May, 2024. 

Chief Justice 

t" 46•J'4 , 

2 

Justices
<PAGE>
 
               [NUMBER 9  VISUAL TECHNOLOGY LOGO APPEARS HERE]


August 25, 1998

Mr. Michael Romanies


Dear Michael;

Pursuant to your intended departure from Number Nine and subsequent agreement to
be retained by Number Nine in an on-call consulting capacity through October 23,
1998, the following will constitute the terms of separation and retention as a 
consultant to the Company.

    It is agreed that:

            1.  When engaged as a Consultant, you will be paid at your current
                rate of compensation plus all reasonable expenses.

            2.  All of the Company paid insurance will remain in effect through
                October 23, 1998 including those benefits extended to you as an
                Officer of the Company. As of October 23, 1998 you will be
                eligible for COBRA coverage and need to notify Number Nine of
                your intent to take/not take advantage of this benefit 
                continuation, as it is made available to you under Federal Law.

            3.  The stock option grant of June, 1998 will continue to vest under
                the terms of the grant through the period of this consultant 
                agreement.

            4.  The stock option grant of August, 1997 will continue to vest 
                under the terms of the grant through the period of this
                consultant agreement.

By affixing signatures below, both parties understand the terms and conditions
of this agreement.


/s/ William Ralph                        /s/ Michael Romanies
---------------------------------        ---------------------------------
Number Nine Visual Technology            Michael Romanies
Order – Page 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

CHARLES BERNARD STARKE, III, §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

v. § Civil Action No. 3:22-CV-677-L-BT

§

STATE OF TEXAS, §

§

Defendant. §

ORDER

On March 25, 2022, the United States Magistrate Judge entered the Findings, Conclusions 

and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (Doc. 6) (“Report”), recommending 

that the court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, deny Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 

(“Motion”) (Doc. 5) and dismiss without prejudice this action unless Plaintiff pays the filing fee by 

April 25, 2022. Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee by the deadline set by the magistrate judge or 

file objections to the Report.

Having considered the pleadings, Plaintiff’s Motion, the Report, file, and record in this 

case, the court determines that the magistrate judge’s findings and conclusions are correct, and 

accepts them as those of the court. Accordingly, the court denies Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. 5) and 

dismisses without prejudice this action for failure to pay the filing fee as ordered.

The court prospectively certifies that any appeal of this action would not be taken in good 

faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3). In support of this certification, the 

court accepts and incorporates by reference the Report. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 

and n.21 (5th Cir. 1997). Based on the Report, the court finds that any appeal of this action would 

present no legal point of arguable merit and would, therefore, be frivolous. See Howard v. King, 

Case 3:22-cv-00677-L-BT Document 8 Filed 04/29/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 32
Order – Page 2

707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Plaintiff, however, may challenge this finding pursuant to

Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F. 3d 197 (5th Cir. 1997), by filing a separate motion to proceed in forma 

pauperis on appeal with the Clerk of Court, United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 

within 30 days of this order. 

It is so ordered this 29th day of April, 2022.

_________________________________

Sam A. Lindsay

United States District Judge

Case 3:22-cv-00677-L-BT Document 8 Filed 04/29/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 33
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.3


                       Report of Independent Accountants


To the Board of Directors and
Shareholders of Netrex, Inc.:

In our opinion, the statements of income, stockholders' equity and cash flows
for the year ended December 31, 1998 of Netrex, Inc., (not presented separately
herein) present fairly, in all material respects, the results of operations and
cash flows of Netrex, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 1998, in conformity
with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.
These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's management;
our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based
on our audit. We conducted our audit of these statements in accordance with
auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America, which
require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about
whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit
includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and
disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles
used and significant estimates made by management, and evaluating the overall
financial statement presentation. We believe that our audit provides a
reasonable basis for the opinion expressed above. We have not audited the
financial statements of Netrex, Inc. for any period subsequent to December 31,
1998.


/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Bloomfield Hills, Michigan
May 17, 1999