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



Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned
hereby certifies that the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2010 of Absolute Potential, Inc.. (the
“Company”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.





|                        | Absolute Potential, Inc.
|----------------------- | ------------------------
|                        |                         
|Dated:  January 6, 2012 | By:                     
|                        |                         
|                        |                         



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 Absolute Potential, Inc. and will be retained by Absolute Potential, Inc. and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Charles Samuel STEINERT, d/b/a/ Charles S. Steinert, P.E., Consulting Engineer, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. David R. LANTER, Sr., Charles E. Rooke, L & R Construction Company, a partnership, First Federal Savings and Loan Association of Charleston, and Bankers Trust of South Carolina, Defendants, Of Whom David R. Lanter, Sr. is Defendant-Respondent.

(325 S. E. (2d) 532)

Supreme Court

Jan. 23, 1985.

ORDER

Prior to trial, the defendants made a statutory offer of compromise pursuant to S. C. Code Ann. § 15-21-10 (1976). Subsequently, plaintiffs mechanics’ lien was vacated and its petition for foreclosure was dismissed. Plaintiff appealed.

The defendants have moved for an order remanding the matter to the trial court for an assessment of costs due them pursuant to the statute. We deny the motion. The proper time for the assessment of these costs is after a decision on the merits of the appeal. Should the defendants prevail in the appeal, they shall be entitled to an assessment of statutory costs in the trial court.

*66We note with concern that the defendants by their motion seek to recover attorney’s fees as well as costs. At common law, each party bore its own costs, expenses, and attorney’s fees. Section 15-21-10 is therefore in derogation of the common law and must be strictly construed. The statute allows the recovery of costs, not costs and attorney’s fees, and we so hold.

The motion to remand is denied. This order shall be published with the opinions of the Court.

It is so ordered.
<PAGE>


                                                                      Exhibit 32

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)


         In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report of TS Electronics,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended December 31, 2004 (the
"Report"), I, Keith P. Boyd, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby
certify that to my knowledge:

         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. ss.78o(d)); and

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

Dated:  February 22, 2005

                                            /S/ KEITH P. BOYD
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Keith P. Boyd
                                            Chairman and Chief Executive Officer


         The above certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss.1350) and is not being filed as
part of the Form 10-QSB or as a separate disclosure document.
Exhibit 23.2


                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


We consent to the use in this Registration Statement of Magnum Hunter Resources,
Inc.  on Form S-4 of our report  dated March 14, 1997 (April 30, 1997 as to Note
16), appearing in the Prospectus,  which is part of this Registration Statement,
and to the reference to us under the heading "Experts" in such Prospectus.




DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Dallas, Texas
October 23, 1997
### THEODORE HUNTER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FORTHE DISTRICT OFCOLUMBIA 

# FILED NOV 3

# a2010 eleark,

# u.s. DIstrIct and 

### ankruptcy Courts 

### Petitioner,


### v. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 

### Civil Action No.

# 10-1--(j{~NA) SIMONWAINWRIGHT, 

### Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION On October29,2010, the clerk's office received a petition for the writ ofhabeas corpus, along with an application to proceed in forma pauperis, from Theodore Hunter. Seven days earlier, the clerk's office received an identical petition and application from Mr. Hunter. The Courthas previously granted the earlier-received application and denied the earlier-received petition. 

### See Mem. Op., 

### Hunter v. 

### Wainright, No. 10-cv-1895 (D.D.C. Nov. 4, 2010), ECF No. 3. The Court will now grantthe later-received application, deny the later-receivedpetition, and dismiss this case. "A claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application under [28 U.S.C. 

### §] 2254 that was presented in a prior application shall be dismissed." 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1). Mr. Hunter, a prisonerchallenging the sentence ofconviction ofthe Superior Court ofthe District ofColumbia, previouslymade a petition under 

### § 2254, which concerns habeas proceedings challenging state custody in federal courts. The claims made in the instant petition are identical to those made in the previous petition. Moreover, the previous petition was dismissed with prejudice. Therefore, per 

### § 2244(b)(1) and the previous dismissal with prejudice,

### the instant petition shall be dismissed. A memorializing order accompanies this memorandum OpInIOn. Date: /}j 

# 1
.. A •. 

## LA**~~** 

## 2IJ/1J 

# ---

-2-
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3821 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3821

 To prevent States from limiting employers from using auto-enrollment 
                for employee health insurance coverage.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 15, 2009

 Mr. Deal of Georgia (for himself, Mr. Burgess, Mr. Pitts, Mr. Blunt, 
and Mr. Buyer) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Education and Labor

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prevent States from limiting employers from using auto-enrollment 
                for employee health insurance coverage.

    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 ``Improved Employee Access to Health 
Insurance Act of 2009''.

SEC. 2. LIMITATIONS ON STATE RESTRICTIONS ON EMPLOYER AUTO-ENROLLMENT.

    (a) In General.--No State shall establish a law that prevents an 
employer from instituting an auto-enrollment process for coverage of a 
participant or beneficiary under a group health plan, or health 
insurance coverage offered in connection with such a plan, so long as 
the participant or beneficiary has the option of declining such 
coverage.
    (b) Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to 
supersede State law which establishes, implements, or continues in 
effect any standard or requirement relating to employers in 
connection--
            (1) with payroll; or--
            (2) the sponsoring of employer sponsored health insurance 
        coverage,
except to the extent that such standard or requirement prevents an 
employer from instituting the auto-enrollment process described in 
subsection (a).
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 10.29**

 

 

| **Name and Principal Position******                                                               | **Salary approved for fiscal year 2006****** | **Bonus approved for fiscal year 2005****** |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------|
| E. Van Cullens

President and Chief Executive Office                                              |  

 

$470,000                     |  

 

$210,000                    |
| John C. Clark

Senior Vice President of Operations                                                |  

 

  252,000          |  

 

162,000                     |
| Nicholas C. Hindman, Sr.

Treasurer, Secretary, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |  

 

 

  249,900  |  

 

 

162,000             |
| William J. Noll 

Senior Vice President of Research and Development and Chief Technology Officer  |  

 

 

240,350              |  

 

 

162,000             |
| Timothy J. Reedy

Chief Executive Officer of Conference Plus, Inc.                                |  

 

  250,000          |  

 

108,000                     |
|  

                                                                                     |                                         |                                        |

 

 

In addition, each of the named executive officers is entitled to receive a bonus for fiscal 2006 based on performance criteria which include revenues, gross margin and operating income before taxes.

 

The Company will provide additional information regarding the compensation of its named executive officers in its Proxy Statement for the 2005 Annual Meeting of Stockholders.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3900 

To extend temporarily the duty suspension on 4,4′-Oxydiphthalic anhydride 

(ODPA). 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 22, 2009 

Mr. OLSON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend temporarily the duty suspension on 4,4′- 

Oxydiphthalic anhydride (ODPA). 

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

3 SECTION 1. 4,4’-OXYDIPHTHALIC ANHYDRIDE (ODPA). 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.05.13 Harmonized 

5 Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 4,4′- 

6 Oxydiphthalic anhydride) is amended by striking ‘‘12/31/ 

7 2009’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/2012’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies with respect to goods entered, or 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3900 IH

1 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

2 the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 22

- 10626 Summary Calendar

**United States of America,**

Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus

**Kelsey Marie Applegate,**

Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 5:21

- CR

- 96

- 29

Before **Smith, Southwick** and **Douglas,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *

The attorney appointed to represent Kelsey Marie Applegate has
moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Applegate has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We

* This opinion is not designated for publication

. See **5th Cir**

**. R.**  47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED January 18, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 22-10626 Document: 00516615512 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/18/2023No. 22

- 10626

2 concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appe llate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to
withdraw is **GRANTED** , counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and th e appeal is **DISMISSED**

. See **5th Cir. R.** 42.2

. Case: 22-10626 Document: 00516615512 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/18/2023
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3805 

To amend the Electronic Duck Stamp Act of 2005 to extend by 2 years 

the period for the conduct of the electronic duck stamp pilot program 

under that Act. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 13, 2009 

Mr. WITTMAN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Electronic Duck Stamp Act of 2005 to extend 

by 2 years the period for the conduct of the electronic 

duck stamp pilot program under that Act. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Electronic Duck Stamp 

5 Extension Act of 2009’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF ELECTRONIC DUCK STAMP PILOT 

7 PROGRAM. 

8 Section 4 of the Electronic Duck Stamp Act of 2005 

9 (Public Law 109–266; 16 U.S.C. 718 note) is amended— 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3805 IH

1 (1) in subsection (a), by striking ‘‘3-year’’ and 

2 inserting ‘‘5-year’’; and 

3 (2) in subsection (b)(2), by striking ‘‘3’’ and in4 serting ‘‘5’’. 

Æ 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
UN PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22
- 1657

In re: DAVID HILL , Petitioner

.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

. ( 1:21

- cv - 00112

- CMH

- TCB; 1:01

- cr - 00191

- CMH

- 1 )

Submitted : July 26, 2022 Decided: September 22, 2022

Before MOTZ, AGEE, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

. David Hill, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-1657 Doc: 5 Filed: 09/22/2022 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: In this petition for a writ of mandamus, David Hill, a federal inmate, seeks an order from this court compelling the district court to accept and consider the postjudgment motions he attempted to file after the court imposed a prefiling injunction on Hill

. See Hill v. McNulty , No. 1:21

- cv - 00112

- CMH

- TCB (E.D. Va., PACER No. 61). “[M]andamus is a drastic remedy that must be reserved for extraordinary situations.” In re Murphy

- Brown, LLC , 907 F.3d 788, 795 (4th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted). We may afford a petitioner mandamus relief “only when (1) petitioner has no other adequate means to attain the relief he desires; (2) petitioner has shown a clear and indisputable right to the requested relief; and (3) the court deems the writ appropriat e under the circumstances.” Id

. ( cleaned up ). Upon review of Hill’s petition and the relevant materials, we conclude that Hill has not shown that he is entitled to mandamus relief. * Accordingly, we deny the petition for a writ of mandamus. We dispens e 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. PETITION DENIED

* We observe that in Appeal No. 22

- 6223, United States v. Hill , we have vacated the district court’s order imposing what is essentially the same prefiling injunction underlying the instant mandamus petition, see United States v. Hill , No. 1:01

- cr - 00191

- CMH

- 1 (E.D. Va., PACER No. 435), and remanded th at matter to the district court for further proceedings related to the prefiling injunction. USCA4 Appeal: 22-1657 Doc: 5 Filed: 09/22/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
EX-32.2 CertificationPursuant to Section 906 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIALOFFICER 

In connection with the Quarterly Reportof Tekron, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-QSB for thequarter ending September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission(the “Report”), I, Donald C Douglas, Acting Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), thatto my knowledge: 

(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/ Donald C. Douglas 

Donald C. Douglas, ChiefFinancial Officer
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 4, 2023

No. 04-23-00040-CR

IN RE Benhur Isaac CASTRO RODRIGUEZ

Original Proceeding1

ORDER

On January 12, 2023, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus. Relator also filed a 

motion to stay the underlying proceeding pending our final resolution of the petition for writ of 

mandamus, which we granted in part on January 13, 2023. 

After considering the petition, real party in interest’s response, relator’s reply, and this 

record, this court concludes relator is partially entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, the 

complaint raised in relator’s petition for writ of mandamus that the trial court failed to rule on his 

application for writ of habeas corpus is CONDITIONALLY GRANTED. The trial court is 

ORDERED to rule on relator’s application for writ of habeas corpus filed on September 30, 2022 

within 15 days of this order’s issuance.

The complaint raised in relator’s petition for writ of mandamus that the trial court failed to 

rule on his motion to continue or waive appearance is DISMISSED as moot. See TEX. R. APP. P.

52.8(a). The stay imposed on January 13, 2023 is LIFTED.

The writ will issue only if the trial court fails to comply with this order. 

It is so ORDERED on October 4, 2023.

_____________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

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

court on this 4th day of October, 2023.

_____________________________

Michael A. Cruz, Clerk of Court

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 13054CR, styled State of Texas v. Benhur Isaac Castro Rodriguez, pending 

in the County Court, Kinney County, Texas, the Honorable Todd Alexander Blomerth presiding.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-7749

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

KEITH ANTHONY WILLIAMS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief

District Judge. (CR-96-108; CA-03-528-3)

Submitted: March 30, 2005 Decided: April 12, 2005

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Keith Anthony Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer Marie Hoefling,

Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Keith Anthony Williams seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying as untimely his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue

absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that

his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Williams has not made the requisite

showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process. 

DISMISSED
Exhibit 10.33 TS Employment Conversion 2


		
			EXHIBIT 10.33
		

		
			 
		

		
			CONVERSION AGREEMENT
		

		
			 
		

		
			            This Conversion Agreement dated as of July 31, 2012 (the “Agreement”) by and between TS Employment, Inc. (“TSEI”) and Corporate Resource Services, Inc. and its subsidiaries (collectively, “CRS”).
		

		
			 
		

		
			            WHEREAS, inter alia, TSEI, (collectively, “TSEI”) and its affiliated and formerly affiliated PEO companies loaned to CRS sums which currently aggregate approximately $3,100,000 (the “Loan”),
		

		
			 
		

		
			            WHEREAS, both TSEI and CRS are willing to convert certain of the Loan from debt to shares of CRS Common Stock, $0.0001 par value, (the “CRS Shares”) as provided below, whereby the amount set forth below (comprising a portion of the Loan) shall be repaid in the form of CRS Shares; and
		

		
			 
		

		
			            The BVA Group, an independent valuation firm has been retained to determine the true share value of the CRS Shares and the number of CRS Shares issuable to TSEI on account thereof.
		

		
			 
		

		
			            NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual premises herein contained, the parties agree as follows:
		

		
			 
		

			
			
				 1.
			

			
			
			Pursuant to the BVA analysis, the true value of the CRS Shares is $0.4622 per share, (“Per Share Price”)




			
			
				 2.
			

			
			
			The parties agree to convert $2.1 million in debt due from CRS to TSEI (the $2.1 Million Debt”) to CRS Shares at the Per Share Price.




			
			
				 3.
			

			
			
			The number of CRS Shares issuable hereunder shall be 4,543,488 Shares (“Issuable Shares”).  This shall be determined by dividing $2.1 million by the Per Share Price. 




			
			
				 4.
			

			
			
			The Issuable Shares shall be issued to TSEI forthwith in exchange for cancellation of the $2.1 Million Debt.




			
			
				 5.
			

			
			
			The foregoing has been approved by the Board of Directors, the majority of the stockholders of CRS and the stockholder of TSEI.  Except as expressly provided herein, the debt due TSEI from CRS shall remain unchanged.




		
			 
		

		
			If the foregoing accurately reflects our agreement, please so indicate by signing below.
		

		
			 
		

		
			                                                            TS EMPLOYMENT, INC.
		

		
			                                                                        (on behalf of itself and its affiliates)
		

		
			 
		

		
			                                                            by: /s/ Robert Cassera                                                     
		

		
			                                                                  Its: President
		

		
			 
		

		
			CORPORATE RESOURCE SERVICES, INC.
		

		
			                                                            and its subsidiaries
		

		
			 
		

		
			                                                            by: /s/ Jay Schecter                                                 
		

		
			                                                                  Its: Chief Executive Officer