alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
***EXHIBIT 32***

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER        PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE        SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In        connection with the report on Form 10-QSB of Montana Mining Corp. for the quarterly period        ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date        hereof (“Report”), I, Ruairidh Campbell, do hereby 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:

 

|   | (1) | This Report complies with the requirements of section 13(a)                        or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | The information contained in this Report fairly represents,                        in all material respects, the financial condition of the small business                        issuer at the end of the period covered by this Report and results of                        operations of the small business issuer for the period covered by this                        Report. |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

/s/        Ruairidh Campbell

Ruairidh        Campbell

Chief        Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

November 9,        2007

 

This        certification accompanies this Report pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of        2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be        deemed filed by the small business issuer for the purposes of §18 of the Securities        Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. This certification shall not be incorporated by reference        into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange        Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of this Report),        irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.

 

A signed        original of this written statement required by §906 has been provided to the small        business issuer and will be retained by the small business issuer and furnished to the        Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Alaska Administrative Code Title 

Environmental Conservation, Chapt

Emissions Inspection and Mainten

Requirements (18 AAC 52)
# C_2015278EN.01000302.xml

| 22.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 278/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 278/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7696 — Lone Star/Balta)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 278/03)

On 5 August 2015, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in the English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7696. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7696. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION

Appellate case name: In re TSG Industries, LLC, Relator

Appellate case number: 01-16-00597-CV

Trial court case number: 2016-17829

Trial court: 269th District Court of Harris County

On November 8, 2016, this Court’s Order, among other things, requested a 

response to the petition for a writ of mandamus filed by the relator, TSG Industries, 

which seeks to vacate the respondent trial judge’s July 1, 2016 order denying relator’s

amended motion to set aside arbitration order, which had compelled arbitration and 

stayed the underlying case pending arbitration. Relator’s mandamus petition was filed in 

this Court on July 29, 2016, without an emergency motion for relief.

On November 17, 2016, relator filed a motion for extraordinary temporary relief, 

with a certificate of compliance, in this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.10(a). Relator 

seeks a stay of the order compelling arbitration because real party in interest, Skystone 

Roofing Group (“RPI Skystone”), filed an arbitration proceeding on July 15, 2016, 

asserting relator’s claim for $107,445.40 against RPI Skystone, and the American 

Arbitration Association has docketed the case and appointed an arbitrator. On November 

18, 2016, RPI Skystone filed a response to the mandamus petition, but has not yet filed a 

response to the motion.

Accordingly, because the arbitration proceeding may render this petition moot, we 

GRANT the relator’s motion for temporary relief, and ORDER that the trial court’s July 

1, 2016 order compelling arbitration is stayed, pending this Court’s disposition of the 

petition. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.10(b). This stay is effective until the petition is decided 

or this Court lifts the stay, and any party may move for reconsideration. See id. 52.10(c).

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Laura Carter Higley

  Acting individually 

Date: December 6, 2016
Exhibit 10.6


ADDENDUM TO SHAREHOLDER LOAN AGREEMENT


 


THIS ADDENDUM made
and entered into on this 31st day of December, 2012 by and between Soul and Vibe Entertainment, Inc. (the "Corporation")
and Peter Anthony Chiodo (the “Shareholder”), an individual.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in
consideration of the Shareholder Agreement between the parties wherein the Shareholder agreed to loan
certain monies (the “Loan”) to the Corporation dated July 14, 2011, the parties agree to the following amendments:


 


		1.	Loan Amount and Interest: The Shareholder will increase the loan amount to a maximum
of $100,000 to the Corporation, when necessary, to provide sufficient cash flow and maintain operations
and the Corporation promises to repay the principal amount to the Shareholder with interest payable on the unpaid balance at the
rate of 3.50 percent per annum, calculated annually not in advance.



 


		2.	Payment: Repayment shall be made when either additional funding is received or a
profit exists. The Corporation will retain the right to prepay the entire outstanding amount at any time without penalty.



 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have
caused this Amendment to be executed in their respective names, in person or by their authorized officers, as of the day and year
first above written.


 


	CORPORATION	 	SHAREHOLDER
BEFORE THE 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Agreements Adopted by the Passenger Services 

Conference (PSC) of the Docket OST-2008- O ? S^^ 

International Air Transport Association - ooo \ 

APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF AGREEMENTS 

BY THE 

INTERNATIONAL AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION 

lATA AGREEMENT APPROVED & IM'vrjN'ZED y, 

DOCKETOST-2f2£- O'^S'*^A C • OATE /^<*-^i ^ ^ % :i£>(0 

This approval and grant of antitrust immunity is subject, where applicable 

to conditions previously imposed. 

This action is effective after 7 days unless a petition is filed under 

14 CFR 385.30 or a review is undertaken on the Department's own motion. 

In view of the agreement's noncontroversial nature and the availability of 

the above procedure, the 21-day MrigiUn 14 CFR 303.42 is waived. 

November 21, 2008 

Communications with respect to 

this document should be sent to: 

Douglas Lavin 

Regional Vice President - North America 

International Air Transport Association 

601 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 300 - North Building 

Tel: +202-628-9292 

# Fax/ International Number +202-628-9448 

Washington, D.C. 20004
RAY SCHREINER,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

___________________________/

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-4811

Opinion filed November 9, 2016.

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus -- Original Jurisdiction.

Ray Schreiner, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

DENIED.

WOLF, BILBREY, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., CONCUR.
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.                  

###### Election Assistance Commission

# PERSON TO CONTACT FOR INFORMATION: 

Bryan Whitener, Telephone: (301) 563-3961.

Submitted: March 24, 2015.

Bryan Whitener,

Director of Communications & Clearinghouse.

[FR Doc. 2015-07090 Filed 3-24-15; 4:15 pm]

 BILLING CODE 6820-KF-P
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 1**  **1 -**  **12 50** 

LESLIE YUENGAL , P laintiff

– Appell ant ,
v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security , Defendant

– Appell ee . Appeal from the United States District Co urt for the Eastern District of N o r th Carolina , at Greenville
. Louise W. Flanagan , Chief District Judge. ( 4 : 1 0

- c v - 0 0 0 4 2

- FL )

Submitted : Jul y 2 8 , 2011 Decided: August 1, 2011

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished pe r curiam opinion
. Leslie Yuengal , Appellant Pro Se
. Eskunder Boyd, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Baltimore, Maryland; Rudolph A. Renfer, Jr. , Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina , for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not bind ing precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Leslie Yuengal appeals the district court’s order upholding the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of benefits under the Social Security Act. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge p ursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp. 2011). The magistrate judge recommended upholding the Commissioner’s decision and advised Yuengal that failure to file timely and specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate rev iew of a district court order based upon the recommendation. The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warn ed of the consequences of noncompliance. Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 845

- 46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Yuengal has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny Yuengal’s motion for appointment of counsel and affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials3 before the court and argument would not aid th e decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">246 West 38 Holdings LLC, Petitioner-Landlord-Respondent, -<br><br>against<br><br>Tufamerica, Inc. d/b/a Tuff City, Records and Night Train International, Respondent-Tenant-Appellant, -and- XYZ, Inc. Respondent (Subtenant).</font></b></div><br><br><p>Tenant appeals from (1) a final judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Jose A. Padilla, J.), entered February 26, 2016, which, upon a prior order granting landlord's motion for summary judgment, awarded landlord possession and a recovery of rent arrears in the principal sum of $30,891.20 in a commercial nonpayment summary proceeding, and (2) a judgment (same judge and Court), entered June 9, 2016, which awarded landlord attorneys' fees in the principal sum of $38,000.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Final judgment (Jose A. Padilla, J.) entered February 26, 2016, and judgment (Jose A. Padilla, J.) entered June 9, 2016, affirmed, with one bill of $25 costs.</p><p>We sustain the dismissal of the commercial tenant's affirmative defenses and counterclaims, albeit for reasons slightly different from those stated by Civil Court. Tenant's first and second affirmative defenses, alleging a lack of personal jurisdiction based upon improper service of the rent demand and notice of petition and petition, were properly stricken. Tenant's denial of service did not rebut the presumption of proper service established by the detailed affidavits of the process server (<i>see HSBC Bank USA, Nat'l Assoc. v Dalessio</i>, 137 AD3d 860, 863 [2016]). Tenant's remaining affirmative defenses, based upon an alleged eviction from the premises, were also properly dismissed. Having previously commenced a plenary action in Supreme Court seeking substantial damages based on this eviction, tenant "thereby waive[d] the eviction as a defense in an action for the rent" (<i>487 Elmwood v Hassett</i>, 107 AD2d 285, 288 [1985]). To the extent the motion court made a merits determination on these affirmative defenses, that determination is vacated. Tenant's counterclaims are barred by the counterclaim waiver provision contained in the lease (<i>see Mid-Island Shopping Plaza Co. v Cutler</i>, 112 AD2d 405, 408 [1985]; <i>Bomze v Jaybee Photo Suppliers</i>, 117 Misc 2d 957 [1983]).</p><p>Landlord's motion for summary judgment was properly granted. The evidentiary proof submitted established, and it was not seriously disputed, that the commercial tenant failed to pay the rent due and owing for the months of September through December 2015, in the total amount of $30,111.59.</p><p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p><br>I concur I concur I concur<p>Decision Date: December 06, 2016</p><br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
• •' -' ^;Pu^A i JC).\'3 205 Catalina Dr. 

Newark, DE 19711 

••' '"'' ' 3 A "i: 3U May 12,2011 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Operations 

West Building, Ground Floor Room W12-140 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE. 

Washington, DC 20590 

To Whom It May Concern: 

Under FAR Section 11.171 would like to petition for a change to FAR 61.51 (f) (2). 

At present if a person is functioning as a Second-in Command (SIC) in an aircraft type 

certificated for one pilot, that person may not log SIC when operating under Part 91. 

A person performing the same function in the same type aircraft while operating 

under FAR 135 or 121 may log SIC. Similarly, under military regulations, military 

pilots get credit for this time. 

There is an inequity here that denies a pilot legally logging experience as a functioning 

crewmember while other pilots get credit for 3ie same duties. I believe a pilot who is 

flying professionally as an assigned flight crewmember in a Part 91 operation should be 

permitted to receive credit for this fligjit time. 

While I am sure there is some concern that a few individuals will abuse this privilege, it 

is not fair to restrict the large number of pilots that this change would affect. Recognition 

of crewmember experience while flying King Air's and similar aircraft operated by 

corporations with two pilots under Part 91 would be reflected in this change. 

As such I request that consideration be given to changing 61.51 (f) (2) to read: 

Holds a Commercial or Airline Transport Pilot Certificate with appropriate category, class 

and instrument rating (if an instrument rating is required for the flight) for the aircraft being 

flown, if that person is an employee of the operator of the aircraft and that person's primary 

duty is as a required flight crewmember. 

As a personal note, I am long past the change benefiting me, but I petition for this change 

to provide equitable treatment amongst the new professional airman. Thank you for your 

consideration. 

Sincerely, 

Craig P. J. Wheel
# C_2015385EN.01000101.xml

| 19.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 385/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 385/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7805 — Apollo Capital Management/RBH/LRG Finance)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 385/01)

On 12 November 2015, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7805. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7805. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

August 23, 2019

No. 04

- 19

- 00097

- CV

Laura Zamora BERINGER

, Appellant

v.

Michael BERINGER, Appellee

From the County Court At Law No 1, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017FLB001191C1 Honorable Hugo Martinez, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Appellant’s brief was due on June 24, 2019, but has not been filed. On August 12, 2019, the Clerk of Court notified appellant that her brief was late and requested appellant to respond to the notice within ten days. On August 20, 2019, appellant responded and filed a motion to

extend the time to file her brief, requesting a sixty

- day extension of the time for filing the brief

. We GRANT appellant’s motion and extend the deadline for appellant to file her brief to August 23, 2019. Further requests for extensions of time will be disfavored.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

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

court on this 23rd da y of August, 2019

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
ACC CPI Safety & Health Training Through June 2011

June 2011 July 2011 Total Through July 2011

Job

Description Fully Complete Fully Complete Fully Complete InProgress

Instructor Online Instructor Online Instructor Online Started, not 

finished

Applicator 15 43 2 37 83 434 225

Helper 2 10 4 10 24 81 33

Other 15 113 6 17 132 665 336

Passing Test Scores through July 2011 100% 90-99% 70-89%

Percent achieving test scores 47% 45% 8%

Other 15 113 6 17 132 665 336

Supervisor 3 23 5 15 110 289 271

Total 35 189 17 79 349 1469 865

Total Students Fully Completed 

Through July 2011

Total Students Started or Finished 

Through July 2011

1818 2683
Exhibit 4.76

	 
	 
	 
	 


This is an English Translation


 


Spousal Consent
Letter


 


I, Chunxia He (ID No:    ), as the legal
spouse of Jianming Dong (ID No:    ), hereby unconditionally agree that the equity interests of Beijing Star World Technology Company
Limited, owned by and registered under name of my spouse, is disposed in accordance with the arrangements under Loan Agreement,
Equity, Equity Disposition Agreement and Equity Pledge Agreement dated as of April 26, 2012 and other supplementary agreements
to be signed from time to time.


 


I further guarantee not to take any
action at any time with an intention conflicting against the above-identified arrangements, including making a claim to court or
other competent authorities that such equity interests constitute the property or community property between my spouse and me.
I, unconditionally and irrevocably, hereby waive any and all rights or benefits granted to me with relation to such equity interests
under applicable laws and confirm that in no event such equity interests constitute any community property between my spouse and
me.


 


	 	 	 
	 	Name of the Spouse:	 /s/ Chunxia He
	 	 	Chunxia He
	 	ID No:	 
	 	Date	April 26, 2012


 


Witness:


 


 


/s/ Mingzhe Zhou


_______________________


Mingzhe Zhou


 


 


 


 


/s/ Qiuhua Xu


_______________________


Qiuhua Xu
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

***Certificate of Chief Financial OfficerPursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002***

 

               In connection with the quarterly report of Summus, Inc. (USA) (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter endedSeptember 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, RobertS. Lowrey, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

> -  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and 
- The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditions andresults of operations of the Company.

 

| Date:       November 12, 2003 |  /s/ Robert S. Lowrey Robert S. Lowrey Chief Financial Officer |
|-------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|