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

 

**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 Accessory Specialists Incorporated (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Anthony N. DeMint, President and Chief Accounting 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. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

| /s/ Anthony N. DeMint                                  |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Anthony N. DeMint

President and Chief Accounting Officer

November 6, 2006
THADDEUS MCKINNON,

Appellant,

v.

MICHELE LEE MCKINNON,

Appellee.

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. 1D16-1477

_____________________________/

Opinion filed December 6, 2016.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Jefferson County.

Karen A. Gievers, Judge.

Thaddeus McKinnon, pro se, Appellant.

No appearance for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, C.J., JAY, and WINSOR, JJ., CONCUR.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 18

- 00254

- CV

Charles J. M ELNIK

, Appellant

v.

Dewayne BALDWIN , Tonia Baldwin, Appellees

From the County Court a t Law No

. 1, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018

- CV

- 0012

Honorable Robin V. Dwyer, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE MARTINEZ

, JUSTICE ALVAREZ , AND JUSTICE RODRIGUEZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED. It is ORDERED that appellees Dewayne and Tonia Baldwin re cover their costs of this appeal from appellant Charles Melnik.

SIGNED June 5, 2019.

_____________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
Exhibit
10.2


 


Amendment
No. 1 to the Promissory Note


 


This
Amendment No. 1 (the “Amendment”) is made and entered into as of September 30, 2021 (the “Effective Date”),
by and between:


 


	 	1.	Finnovate
    Sponsor L.P. (the “Sponsor”); and
	 	 	 
	 	2.	Finnovate
    Acquisition Corp. (the “Company”)


 


The
above parties shall be referred to individually, as a “Party” and collectively, as the “Parties”.


 


WHEREAS:


 


	 	(A)	On
    March 21, 2021 the Parties executed a Promissory Note effecting a revolving loan up to a principal amount of $150,000 in favor of
    the Company (the “Promissory Note”), out of which an approximate sum of $73,200 was used through the Effective
    Date; and
	 	 	 
	 	(B)	The
    Parties wish to increase the principal amount under the Promissory Note from $150,000 to $250,000;


 


NOW
THEREFORE, the Parties hereby agrees as follows:


 


	1.	Introduction
    


 


Capitalized
terms not otherwise defined in this Amendment shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the Promissory Note.


 


	2.	Amendment
    to the Principal Amount


 


The
Prinicipal Amount (as defined in the Promissory Note) shall be increased from $150,000 to $250,000.


 


	3.	Miscellaneous


 


By
executing and delivering this Amendment, the Parties acknowledge and agree to amend the Promissory Note as per the provisions of this
Amendment with immediate effect. This Amendment shall become an integral part of the Promissory Note. Other than as specifically modified
and amended in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this Amendment, all other terms of the Promissory Note are hereby confirmed
and ratified and they shall remain in full force and effect and bind the Parties without any change.


 


Sections
7 through 13 of the Promissory Note are incorporated herein by reference.


 


[Remainder
of Page intentionally left blank]


 




    	 



     


    

 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been duly executed on the date first written above.


 


	Finnovate Sponsor L.P.,	Finnovate
Acquisition Corp.
	through its General Partner,	 	 
	Finnovate Sponsor LLC	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 /s/ David Gershon 	 	 /s/ Ron Golan 
	By:	David
    Gershon	By:
    	Ron
    Golan
	Title:	Managing
    Member	Title:
    	Chief
    Financial Officer
#### Ebert, Appellant, *v.*Kaufmann.

• *Appeals*— Rule *for penalty under act of May*19, 1897.

On an appeal from a judgment on a verdict for defendant in a sheriff’s interpleader, the penalty under the Act of May 19, 1897, P. L. 67, will be imposed, where it appears that the appellant filed no assignments of error, served no paper-book, suffered a non pros, and made no answer to the petition for the rule for penalty, which averred that the appellant when he bought the stock of goods in controversy made no request for a list of creditors of the vendor, and that he knew of the appellee’s judgment.

Appeal, No. 144, October Term, 1907.

Petition for rule for penalty.

The petition was as follows :

That the above action was a sheriff’s interpleader to determine the title to the stock and fixtures of a bakery purchased by Carl Ebert from his brother, Louis Ebert, August 1, 1905; that upon the trial of the case claimant admitted that he did not ask his brother for a list of the names and residences of his creditors, and that he knew of the Kaufmann judgment, and that his brother said he would pay Kau f mann ; that Louis Ebert admitted on cross-examination that his brother did not ask for a list of creditors.

That claimant made a motion for a new trial, and no argument being made in support thereof the rule was discharged June 18, 1907 ; that after taking the appeal appellant took no further proceedings in the matter, filed no assignments of error, served no paper-book and, when the case was called on October 7, 1907, suffered the appeal to be non. prossed.

Your petitioner therefore prays your honorable court to enter a rule on appellant to show cause why an attorney’s fee of $25.00 and damages at the rate of six per cent per annum in addition to legal interest should not be awarded to appellee as *488further coRs, as provided in section 21 of the Act of assembly of May 19, 1897, P. L. 67.

October 21, 1907:

Per Curiam,

Rule absolute.
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2578 

To extend the moratorium on residential evictions, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 31, 2021 

Mr. SCHUMER (for Mr. BROWN (for himself, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. REED, Ms. 

WARREN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. WYDEN, and Mr. CASEY)) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To extend the moratorium on residential evictions, and for 

other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF EVICTION MORATORIUM. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—The order issued by the Centers 

5 for Disease Control and Prevention under section 361 of 

6 the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 264) entitled 

7 ‘‘Temporary Halt in Residential Evictions To Prevent the 

8 Further Spread of COVID–19’’ (85 Fed. Reg. 55292 

9 (September 4, 2020)) is extended through October 18, 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2578 IS

1 2021, notwithstanding the effective dates specified in such 

2 Order. 

3 (b) FURTHER EXTENSION.—The Director of the 

4 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may further 

5 extend the order described in subsection (a) as determined 

6 necessary by the Director. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
### Swanson, Brian COST) From: Susan Pulitzer [principessa327@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday,February 24,201011 :16 AM To: dennisdevany@dot.gov;.Swanson, Brian (OST) Subject: Cape Air /Colgan Air at Plattsburgh Gentlemen: Please allow meto add myvoice to Andrew Schonbek's and to those who are encouraging you NOT to replace CapeAir with Colgan Air at this time. I have children (working professionals) who live in Boston and have had occasion touse CapeAir. Both have found Cape Air to be an excellent carrier operated byvery capable personnel. Although we all would prefer to be flying in larger planes, such a move could be considered an upgrade ONLY ifsafety and service were equal and it appears that, atthis point, they are not. It doesn't make senseto abandon a carrier with a provenrecord and commitment to Plattsburgh for one with a less than stellar safety record and vague guarantees. I urge youto advise the legislators to exercise patience. At some point inthe future, Plattsburgh will be well positioned tograduate to larger planes withthe full support ofthe community. NTSB and FAAreforms will havehad time to be implemented. The.Montreal market will still bethere. Inthe meantime, Iwould encourage you to consider the old adages: "Safety First" and "Timing is Everything". In the long term, Plattsburgh Airport and the local economy

### will bethe winner. Sincerely, Susan Pulitzer

1
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 99

Review Report of Independent Certified Public Accountants


To the Board of Directors and Shareholders
of Southeastern Banking Corporation:

          We have reviewed the consolidated balance sheet of Southeastern
Banking Corporation and its subsidiaries as of June 30, 2001 and the related
consolidated statements of income for the three and six month periods ended June
30, 2001 and 2000, and the related condensed consolidated statements of changes
in shareholders' equity and cash flows for the six months ended June 30, 2001
and 2000 included in the accompanying Securities and Exchange Commission Form
10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2001. These financial statements are the
responsibility of the Company's management.

          We conducted our reviews in accordance with standards established by
the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. A review of interim
financial information consists principally of applying analytical procedures to
financial data, and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial and
accounting matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in
accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of
America, the objective of which is the expression of an opinion regarding the
financial statements taken as a whole. Accordingly, we do not express such an
opinion.

          Based on our reviews, we are not aware of any material modifications
that should be made to the condensed consolidated financial statements referred
to above for them to be in conformity with accounting principles generally
accepted in the United States of America.

          We have previously audited, in accordance with auditing standards
generally accepted in the United States of America, the consolidated balance
sheet as of December 31, 2000, and the related consolidated statements of
income, changes in shareholders' equity, and cash flows for the year then ended
(not presented herein); and in our report dated January 30, 2001, we expressed
an unqualified opinion on those consolidated financial statements. In our
opinion, the information set forth in the accompanying condensed consolidated
balance sheet as of December 31, 2000 is fairly stated in all material respects
in relation to the consolidated balance sheet from which it has been derived.



Atlanta, Georgia
August 14, 2001
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

U.S. BANK N.A.,

Respondent

v.

AGNES MANU AND STEVE A. FREMPONG,

Petitioners :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 344 EAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the

Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 15th day of January, 2020

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
# C_2016096EN.01000402.xml

| 11.3.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.3.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/4

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7903 — Löwen Entertainment/Safari Holding/Schmidt Gruppe Service/Gesellschaft für Spielerschutz und Prävention)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 96/03)

On 4 March 2016, 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 German 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 32016M7903. 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 32016M7903. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

1

---
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 16-0851V 

Filed: September 23, 2016

Unpublished

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

CARRIE BRAZELTON, * 

 * 

 Petitioner, * Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

 * Influenza (“Flu”) Vaccine; Shoulder

v. * Injury Related to Vaccine Administration

 * (“SIRVA”); Special Processing Unit

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * (“SPU”)

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * 

 * 

 Respondent. * 

 * 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Amber D. Wilson, Maglio Christopher and Toale, PA, Washington, DC, for petitioner.

Voris E. Johnson, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

On July 20, 2016, Carrie Brazelton (“petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation 

under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et 

seq.,

2 (the “Vaccine Act” or “Program”). Petitioner alleges that as a result of receiving 

the influenza (“flu”) vaccine on September 30, 2015, she suffered a shoulder injury 

related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”). Petition at 1. The case was assigned to 

the Special Processing Unit (“SPU”) of the Office of Special Masters.

On September 22, 2016, respondent filed a Rule 4(c) report conceding

entitlement to compensation in this case. Rule 4(c) Rep. at 1. Respondent concluded, 

based on her evaluation of the evidence, that petitioner suffered a SIRVA, and that the 

preponderance of the medical evidence indicates the injury was causally related to the 

flu vaccination she received on September 30, 2015. Id. at 4. Respondent stated that 

 

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the 

undersigned intends to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance with 

the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012)(Federal Management and Promotion of 

Electronic Government Services). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to 

identify and move to redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an 

unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, the undersigned agrees that the identified material fits 

within this definition, the undersigned will redact such material from public access.

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for 

ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 

300aa (2012).
2

she did not identify any other causes for petitioner’s SIRVA, and that the evidence of 

record demonstrates petitioner has suffered the residual effects of her condition for

more than six months. Id. Petitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for 

compensation under the Vaccine Act. Id.

In view of respondent’s concession and the evidence of record, the 

undersigned finds that petitioner is entitled to compensation. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 s/Nora Beth Dorsey

Nora Beth Dorsey

Chief Special Master
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2783 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2783

To provide resettlement benefits for certain nationals of Afghanistan, 
                        and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 21, 2021

  Mr. Merkley introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide resettlement benefits for certain nationals of Afghanistan, 
                        and for other purposes.

    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 ``Welcoming Evacuees Coming from 
Overseas to Mitigate Effects of Displacement Act of 2021'' or the 
``WELCOMED Act of 2021''.

SEC. 2. RESETTLEMENT BENEFITS FOR AFGHAN ENTRANTS.

    (a) Definition of Afghan Entrant.--In this Act, the term ``Afghan 
entrant'' means a national of Afghanistan (or in the case of an alien 
having no nationality, a person who last habitually resided in 
Afghanistan) who is paroled into the United States pursuant to section 
212(d)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)) 
during the period beginning on July 1, 2021, and ending on July 1, 
2025.
    (b) Resettlement Support Authorized.--Notwithstanding any other 
provision of law, an Afghan entrant shall be eligible for resettlement 
assistance (including services for unaccompanied refugee minors) and 
any other Federal public benefit (as defined in section 401(c) of the 
Personal Responsibility and Work Reconciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 
1611(c))) in the same manner as an alien admitted to the United States 
under section 207 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
1157).
    (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to be 
appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out this section.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2015266EN.01000101.xml

| 14.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 266/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 266/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7642 — Banque publique d’investissement/CNIM/Suncnim)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 266/01)

On 29 July 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 French 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 32015M7642. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7642. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.

---

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

1

---
Exhibit 99.4

News Release
January 21, 2000

Trading Symbols:TRBD (EASDAQ)

TURBODYNE REPORTS SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT  IN FAVOR OF GRAND TECH, INC.

Carpinteria, CAJanuary 21, 2000Turbodyne Technologies Inc. (EASDAQ:TRBD)
announced today that it has paid the judgment entered in favor of Grand Tech, Inc. (formerly: Grand Technologies, Inc.) in connection with the arbitration proceeding instituted by Grand
Tech, Inc. against Turbodyne Technologies Inc., Turbodyne Systems Inc. and Director Edward Halimi. The satisfaction of the judgment results in a release of Grand Tech, Inc.'s liens
against Turbodyne.

Gerhard
E. Delf, Turbodyne's Chief Executive Officer, stated: "The satisfaction of the Grand Tech, Inc. judgment and arbitration award removes significant legal obstacles that
previously faced Turbodyne, and allows the Turbodyne companies to enter the new year free and clear of the liens and ongoing legal burdens that arose as a result of the Grand Tech, Inc.
arbitration."

Turbodyne
Technologies Inc., a California based high technology company, specializes in the development, manufacture and marketing of performance enhancement, fuel economy and
pollution control products for internal combustion engines in the global automotive, transportation, construction, marine, mining and military industries.

Turbodyne
Technologies Inc.'s headquarters is located in Carpinteria, CA; the European business location is Frankfurt, Germany.

Contacts:

Corporate
Communications, Peter Weichselbraun (800) 566-1130
VP Group FinanceInvestor Relations, Ken Fitzpatrick (800) 566-1130
European Business Development, Markus Kumbrink +49-69-975-44-665

---

QuickLinks
#### Rader’s License.

October 7, 1907:

Argued May 17, 1907.

Appeal, No. 202, April T., 1907, by Charles L. Rader, from order of *Q.*S. Mercer Co., Jan. T., 1907, No. 47, refusing a retail liquor license.

Before Rice, P. J., Henderson, 0ready, Head and Beayer, JJ,

Affirmed,

Per Curiam,

The order is affirmed,