alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>



EXHIBIT 99.1

                           NATIONAL AUTO CREDIT, INC.
                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                           PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350
                 (SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

I, James J. McNamara, Chief Executive Officer of National Auto Credit, Inc., a
Delaware corporation (the "Registrant"), in connection with the Registrant's
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended April 30, 2003, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), do
hereby represent, warrant and certify pursuant to Section 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) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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


/s/ James J. McNamara
--------------------------------------------
Name:  James J. McNamara
Title: Chief Executive Officer
Date:  June 20, 2003
#### Chelrob, Inc., et al., Suing on Behalf of Themselves and All Other Stockholders of Queens Borough Gas & Electric Company Similarly Situated, Who May Join in This Action, Appellants, *v.*Edward F. Barrett et al., Respondents.

Submitted June 7, 1943;

decided June 18, 1943.

*526
      *Harry Tabershaw*and *Milton Paulson*for motion.

*Edward J. Crummey*and *Thomas A. Gaffney*opposed.

*Per Curiam.*

The amount paid to the printer for 100 printed copies of the record on appeal in the Appellate Division was $5,133.90. The defendants’ attorney agreed with the attorney for the plaintiffs that in ease the plaintiffs thereafter appealed to the Court of Appeals “ there shall be available to you for purchase [at the printer’s price for the second fifty copies] fifty copies of the record on appeal.” Upon the taxation of costs by the defendants after the decision by the Appellate Division in their favor, items of expense, aggregating $863.50, which were included in the amount paid to the printer, were stricken out upon plaintiffs’ objection. Whether or not these items were a necessary disbursement for printing the record on appeal in the Appellate Division is immaterial, for it is undisputed that the amounts stricken out were actually paid to the printer as part of the cost of printing the record on appeal in the Appellate Division and consequently these items did not constitute any part of the additional *"*printer’s price for the second fifty copies.”

*527Motion for order directing that the appeal may proceed and be heard upon filing with this court five copies of the record used in the Appellate Division, together with nineteen printed copies of the necessary additional papers, granted, unless the respondents make available to the appellants fifty copies of the printed record on appeal used in the Appellate Division for the price of $145.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Samuel Eugene BAKER, also known as Samuel E. Baker, also known as Samuel Baker, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-51087 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed June 2, 2017

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Samuel Eugene Baker, Pro Se

Before KING, DENNIS, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Samuel Eugene Baker has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Baker has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review.

However, there is a clerical error in the written judgment, which fails to reflect the dismissal of certain counts of the indictment. The record shows that Baker was convicted and sentenced on Count Four and that the remaining counts of the indictment were dismissed. The amended judgment therefore should reflect that Counts One, Two, Three, Five, and Six of the indictment were dismissed on the Government’s motion. *See United States v. Powell,*354 F.3d 362, 371-72 (5th Cir. 2003).

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2. The case is REMANDED for the limited purpose of correcting the clerical error in the judgment. *See*Fed. R. Crim. P. 36.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R, 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Exhibit 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Evagelina Esparza Barrza, CEO and CFO, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of eClic, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary
to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by
this amended annual report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
registrant and we have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant is made known to
us by others within the Corporation, particularly during the period in which
this annual report is being prepared;

  b) evaluated the effectiveness of  the registrant's disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) disclosed in this report any change in  the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during  the registrant's most
recent fiscal year that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect,  the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control
over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee
of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
function):

    a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect  the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

    b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting.

Date:  April 13, 2005                     /s/ Evagelina Esparza Barrza
       --------------                     ----------------------------
                                              Evagelina Esparza Barrza
                                              Chief Executive Officer
                                              Chief Financial Officer

<PAGE>
First Amendment to Manufacturing Agreement by and between NSA, Inc. and NAI



 Exhibit 10.35 
 FIRST AMENDMENT TO 
 MANUFACTURING AGREEMENT 

This First Amendment (“Amendment”) to the Manufacturing Agreement by and between Natural Alternatives
International, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Seller”), and NSA, Inc., a Tennessee corporation (“NSA”), dated as of April 1, 2005 (“Agreement”), is made and entered into effective as of April 1, 2012
(“Effective Date”). Unless otherwise defined herein, capitalized terms shall have the meanings given them in the Agreement. 
 1. Section 12 of the Agreement is hereby replaced in its entirety with the following: 
 12. Term. Subject to Section 14 of this Agreement, the term of this Agreement shall commence on the date first written hereinabove and shall expire at the end of the business day
occurring nine (9) years thereafter. 
 2. Section 14 of the Agreement is hereby amended to add
the following: 
 (e) Three (3) Month Notice. Either party may terminate this Agreement at any
time upon three (3) months’ prior written notice to the other party. 
 3. Section 29 of
the Agreement is hereby amended to replace the notice information pertaining to Fisher Thurber LLP with the following: 
 K&L Gates LLP 
 3580 Carmel Mountain Road, Suite 200

 San Diego, CA 92130 
 Attn: David A. Fisher, Esq. 
 4. Notwithstanding the provisions of
Section 38 of the Agreement, NSA hereby acknowledges and agrees that Seller may file this Amendment with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and describe the terms of this Amendment in Seller’s filings with
the SEC as required by applicable law and this shall constitute NSA’s consent thereto. 
 5. Except as set
forth herein, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 
 6. This
Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which when so executed and delivered shall be deemed an original, and such counterparts together shall constitute one instrument. Delivery by facsimile or other electronic means of an
executed counterpart hereof shall have the same force and effect as delivery of an originally executed counterpart hereof. 

[Signatures on following page.] 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Amendment as of the Effective Date.

  

			
	NAI
	
	Natural Alternatives International, Inc.,
a Delaware corporation
	
	 /s/    Mark A.
LeDoux        

	Mark A. LeDoux, Chief Executive Officer
	
	NSA
	
	NSA, Inc.,
a Tennessee corporation
		
	By:	 	 /s/ G.O. Giles

	Printed Name:	 	 G.O. Giles

	Title:	 	 VP
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                  5
<LEGEND>
         This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
         Saleoutlet.Com, Inc. (formerly Austin Underground, Inc.) December 31,
         1999 financial statements and is qualified in its entirety by reference
         to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>             0001085819
<NAME>            Saleoutlet.Com, Inc.

<S>               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                  DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                            338,143
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                      48,727
<ALLOWANCES>                            0
<INVENTORY>                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  622,282
<PP&E>                             72,480
<DEPRECIATION>                      5,018
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    689,744
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             189,635
<BONDS>                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<COMMON>                            9,042
<OTHER-SE>                      2,047,259
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      689,744
<SALES>                           158,738
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  160,319
<CGS>                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   1,734,916
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         0
<INCOME-TAX>                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>            (1,557,569)
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                   (1,557,569)
<EPS-BASIC>                     7,103,830
<EPS-DILUTED>                   7,103,830


</TABLE>
#### Josephine Golembowski, as Administratrix of the Estate of Ignatius Golembowski, Deceased, Appellant *v.*Ignatius Golembowski, Jr., Defendant, and Sophie Golembowski et al., Defendants-Respondents.

Submitted January 12, 1943;

decided February 25, 1943.

*562
      *Michael A. Gurda*for appellant.

*Charles E. Neier*for Sophie Golembowski, respondent.

*Arthur O. Maharay, Jr.,*and *Melvin G. Vernon*for Calvin Crawford et al., as trustees, respondents.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Finch, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ. Loughran, J., dissents on the ground that the findings of the Special Term are in accord with the weight of evidence.
Exhibit 32.1

                      Pacific WebWorks, Inc.

                 CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT
    Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
                      18 U.S.C. Section 1350

The undersigned officer of Pacific WebWorks, Inc. certifies pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:

..    the annual report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the year ended
     December 31, 2004, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
     or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

..    the information contained in the Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in all
     material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
     the Company.


Date:   March 29, 2005
                                /s/ Kenneth W. Bell
                                ____________________________________
                                Kenneth W. Bell
                                Chief Executive Officer
                                Principal Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6511 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6511

 To prohibit the United States from soliciting or accepting funds from 
  United States citizens or lawful permanent residents of the United 
   States as a condition of their repatriation from Israel and other 
   nations during the period of evacuation, as a result of the Hamas 
               terrorist attacks, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 29, 2023

  Ms. Wilson of Florida (for herself and Mr. Gimenez) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prohibit the United States from soliciting or accepting funds from 
  United States citizens or lawful permanent residents of the United 
   States as a condition of their repatriation from Israel and other 
   nations during the period of evacuation, as a result of the Hamas 
               terrorist attacks, 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 ``Justifiable Use of Money for Peace 
Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON SOLICITATION OF REIMBURSEMENT.

    Notwithstanding subsection (b)(2)(A)(ii) of section 4 of the State 
Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956 (22 U.S.C. 2671), during the 
period of evacuation from Israel as a result of the Hamas terror 
attacks--
            (1) the Secretary of State shall waive any expectation of 
        repayment of any travel expenses incurred by the Department of 
        State on behalf of any United States citizen or lawful 
        permanent resident evacuated from Israel and repatriated to the 
        United States as a result of the Hamas terror attacks;
            (2) any promissory note or other obligation to repay an 
        emergency repatriation loan signed by a United States citizen 
        or a lawful permanent resident of the United States to 
        reimburse the Department of State for travel expenses described 
        in paragraph (1) shall be null and void; and
            (3) no Federal official or employee may solicit or accept 
        any amount from any individual who is a citizen of the United 
        States or a lawful permanent resident of the United States, 
        whether in the form of a reimbursement or as any other 
        condition of using transportation provided by the United 
        States, to repatriate such individual to the United States.
                                 <all>
```
U.S. Department of 

Transportation 

Office of the Secretary 

of Transportation 

Jim Talbert 

Airport Manager, Alamogordo-White Sands Regional Airport 

3500 Airport Road 

Alamogordo, NM 88310 

Dear Mr. Talbert: 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE 

Washington DC 20590 

FEB 1 8 2015 

Thank you for your letter ofNovember 6, 2014, requesting reinstatement by the 

Department of Transportation ("Department") of Alamogordo/Holloman Air Force Base 

("Alamogordo" or "the community") into the Essential Air Service (EAS) program. 

You state that Alamogordo's EAS eligibility was terminated in March 2012 because the 

per-passenger subsidy exceeded $1,000 per passenger, but at the time, the community 

met all other requirements for EAS eligibility. Further, you state that for Fiscal Years 

2013 and 2014, the subsidy per passenger was $0 and that the community continues to 

meet the other requirements for subsidized service under the EAS Program. Thus, you 

request that Department issue a request for proposals to provide subsidized service 

between Alamogordo and Dallas/Fort Worth to begin as soon as possible. 

49 U.S.C. § 41731(a)(l)(C) requires that all EAS communities, except those in Alaska or 

Hawaii, have a subsidy per passenger under $1,000 during the most recent fiscal year. 

Congress did not provide for a waiver from the $1,000 cap, nor is there a reinstatement 

provision. 

While 49 U.S.C. § 41733(g)(1) provides for a reinstatement of service, it only applies to 

communities that were found ineligible pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 41731(a)(l)(B), which is 

the requirement that communities average 10 or more enplanements per service day 

during the most recent fiscal year. That was not the reason for Alamogordo's termination 

from the EAS program. Thus, the Department lacks authority to reinstate the community 

into the EAS program, as the statute provides no opportunity for reinstatement where a 

community's EAS eligibility has been terminated for exceeding the $1 ,000 per-passenger 

subsidy cap. 
Page 2 

Mr. Jim Talbert 

While I appreciate that the community had hoped for a different outcome, I hope that this 

information is helpful in understanding the reasons for the Department's response. I am 

placing this letter on www.regulations.gov in Docket DOT-OST-1996-1901. 

Sincerely, 

Kevin Schlemmer 

Chief, Essential Air Service 

and Domestic Analysis Division
(LOGO) Deloitte & Touche


Deloitte & Touche LLP
Suite 1200
695 Town Center Drive
Costa Mesa, California 92626-1924
Telephone: (714) 436-71O0
Facsimile: (714) 436-7200


INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS' REPORT

To Ameriquest Mortgage Company:

We have examined  management's  assertion about  Ameriquest  Mortgage  Company's
compliance  with the minimum  servicing  standards  identified  in the  Mortgage
Bankers Association of America's Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage
Bankers (USAP) as of and for the year ended  December 31. 1999,  included in the
accompanying  management  assertion.  Management is  responsible  for Ameriquest
Mortgage  Company's  compliance  with those  minimum  servicing  standards.  Our
responsibility  is to express an opinion  on  management's  assertion  about the
entity's compliance based on our examination.

Our  examination  was  made in  accordance  with  standards  established  by the
American  Institute of Certified Public Accountants and,  accordingly,  included
examining,  on a  test  basis,  evidence  about  Ameriquest  Mortgage  Company's
compliance  with the  minimum  servicing  standards  and  performing  such other
procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances.  We believe that our
examination  provides a reasonable  basis for our opinion.  Our examination does
not provide a legal  determination on Ameriquest  Mortgage Company's  compliance
with the minimum servicing standards.

In our opinion, management's assertion that Ameriquest Mortgage Company complied
with the aforementioned minimum servicing standards as of and for the year ended
December 31, 1999, is fairly stated, in all material respects.


Deloitte & Touche LLP


February 25,2000


(LOGO) Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
Exhibit 10.54(a)

AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO REGISTRATION RIGHTS AGREEMENT

This Amendment No. 1 to Registration Rights Agreement ("Amendment No. 1") amends that certain
Registration Rights Agreement (the "Agreement") dated February 22, 2000 by and among Nextel Partners, Inc. (the
"Company") and the shareholders listed on the signature pages of the Agreement. Terms that are not defined in context are defined in the Agreement or in
that certain Amended and Restated Shareholders' Agreement dated as of February 18, 2000, as amended, by and among Nextel Partners, Inc. and the various shareholders listed in such
agreement.

1.    The
parties hereto agree that the existing Section 3 of the Agreement shall be replaced in its entirety by the following new Section 3:

3.    Holdback
Agreements. With respect to each and every Underwritten Public Offering:



---



2.Removal of Certain Parties.The parties hereby agree that from and after the date of this Amendment
No. 1, (i) the parties listed on Annex A attached hereto and made a part hereof shall no longer be parties to the Agreement and shall not be subject to any of the obligations or accorded
any of the rights and benefits thereunder, and (ii) all Shares held by such parties shall no longer be subject to the provisions of the Agreement.

3.Private Transactions with an Affiliate.The parties agree that if any party to the Agreement transfers any
Shares subject to the Agreement in a private transaction to an Affiliate, the Shares so transferred shall remain subject to the provisions of the Agreement including, without limitation, the holdback
provisions contained in Section 3 of the Agreement. Shares transferred to a non-Affiliate and Shares transferred pursuant to a registered offering or in accordance with
Rule 144 of the Securities Act shall, immediately after such transfers, no longer be subject to the provisions of the Agreement or accorded any rights hereunder. The parties hereby agree that
Section 14 of the Agreement is hereby amended to the extent necessary to effect the foregoing.

[SIGNATURE
PAGES FOLLOW]

2

---

ANNEX A  TO  AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO REGISTRATION RIGHTS AGREEMENTPARTIES REMOVED FROM REGISTRATION RIGHTS AGREEMENT

Raven
Trust

Paul
Goodrich

Gerald
Grinstein

Tom
Alberg

Steven
W. Hooper, Sr.

Avenir
LLC

Arthur
Harrigan

3

---

QuickLinks