alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.1

                       WINDSWEPT ENVIORNMENTAL GROUP, INC.
          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 Windswept Environmental
Group, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 27, 2005
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), the undersigned, Michael O'Reilly, the Chief Executive Officer of the
Company and Andrew C. Lunetta, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.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.

            A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906
has been provided to Windswept Environmental Group, Inc. and will be retained by
Windswept Environmental Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

Date:  November 21, 2005
                                             /s/ Michael O'Reilly
                                             -----------------------
                                             Michael O'Reilly
                                             Chief Executive Officer
                                             (Principal Executive Officer)

                                             /s/ Andrew C. Lunetta
                                             -----------------------
                                             Andrew C. Lunetta
                                             Chief Financial Officer
                                             (Principal Financial Officer)
EXHIBIT 28b


               SECOND AMENDMENT TO REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AGREEMENT


         THIS SECOND  AMENDMENT  TO REAL ESTATE  PURCHASE  AGREEMENT  (the
"Amendment")  is made and entered into as of the 28th day of March,2001, by
and between TROUT CREEK PROPERTIES,  LLC ("Seller") and CRESCENT  RESOURCES,
LLC, formerly known as Crescent Resources, Inc. ("Buyer").

                                       RECITALS

         A.       Seller and Buyer entered into that certain Real Estate
Purchase Agreement (the "Agreement")  dated November 29,  2000 and First
Amendment  dated  January 17, 2001,  wherein Buyer agreed to purchase from
Seller and Seller agreed to sell to Buyer certain real property located in Pasco
County,  Florida,  described  therein (the  "Premises") in accordance with the
terms and conditions of such Agreement.

         B.       Seller and Buyer desire to extend the Investigation Period
under the  Agreement to April 30, 2001, and extend the Closing Date to
May 2, 2001.

                                      AGREEMENT

         NOW,  THEREFORE,  in consideration of the premises and the mutual
covenants  contained herein, and for other good and valuable consideration,
Seller and Buyer do hereby agree as follows:

         1.       Investigation  Period.  The Investigation  Period described in
Paragraph 3  of the Agreement is hereby  extended to expire at 5:00 PM local
time in Tampa, Florida on April 30, 2001.

         2.       Closing Date. The Closing Date  described in Paragraph 7(a)
of the Agreement is hereby  extended from March 31, 2001, to May 2, 2001, and
Paragraphs  7(a) & 7(b) of the Agreement are hereby  amended to substitute the
date of May 2, 2001, for the dates of March 31, 2001, and April 30, 2001, in
each  instance  where such dates are  mentioned  therein.  If Buyer elects to
extend the Closing Date beyond May 2,  2001,  Buyer must give Seller written
notice and pay the Extension Fee by May 2,  2001, in which event the Extension
Fee shall be applicable to the Adjusted Purchase Price as shown in said
Paragraph 7(b).

         3.       Ratification  of  Agreement.  This Amendment shall control any
conflicting  provisions  of the Agreement or prior amendments, which is hereby
ratified and confirmed by Buyer and Seller.

         4.       Counterparts.  This Amendment may be executed in two (2) or
more counterparts,  each of which shall be taken to be an original.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as
of the day and year first above written.

SELLER:                                              BUYER:

TROUT CREEK PROPERTIES, LLC                 CRESCENT RESOURCES, LLC

By:   /s/ Brian P. Burns                    By: Michael Wiggins
      -----------------------                   ---------------------------
Name: Brian P. Burns                        Name:  Michael Wiggins
Title:  Chairman                           Title:  Vice President
Date:   3/28/01                             Date:  3-28-01
FOURTH AMENDMENT to
           STOCK SALE AGREEMENT by and between PLM INTERNATIONAL,INC.
         and GUARANTY FEDERAL BANK, F.S.B. dated as of October 26, 1999


         PLM  International,   Inc.  ("Seller")  and  Guaranty  Business  Credit
Corporation  ("Purchaser")  hereby enter into this Fourth Amendment (the "Fourth
Amendment") to Stock Sale Agreement by and between PLM  International,  Inc. and
Guaranty Federal Bank, F.S.B. dated as of October 26, 1999 (the "Agreement").

         WHEREAS,  Seller and Purchaser,  as successor to Guaranty Federal Bank,
F.S.B., are parties to the Agreement; and

         WHEREAS,  Section  5.4  of  the  Agreement  provides  that  Seller  and
Purchaser  shall  jointly  make and file the Section  338(h)(10)  Election  with
respect to the acquisition of Company and each Company Subsidiary; and

         WHEREAS,  Section 5.4 (a)(ii) of the  Agreement  calls for Purchaser to
prepare and submit to Seller a draft of the Section 338 Forms  setting forth the
Election  Allocations at least one hundred twenty (120) days prior to the latest
date for the filing of each Section 338 Form; and

         WHEREAS,  the parties  agree that the date for  Purchaser  to submit to
Seller the draft of the  Section 338 Forms as required by Section 5.4 (a)(ii) is
presently August 17, 2000 (the "Draft Election Submission Date"); and

         WHEREAS,  the  Seller  and the  Purchaser  desire to  extend  the Draft
Election Submission Date to September 18, 2000;

         THEREFORE,  the Seller and the Purchaser desire to modify the Agreement
and agree to the following:

1.       All  capitalized  terms  contained  in this  Fourth  Amendment  and not
         otherwise  defined  herein  shall  have the  meaning  set  forth in the
         Agreement.

2.       The Draft Election  Submission Date described in Section  5.4(a)(ii) is
         hereby extended to and including September 18, 2000; and

3.       Except as specifically modified by this Fourth Amendment,  the terms of
         the Agreement are hereby affirmed, enforceable and remain in full force
         and effect.


Dated:   July 31, 2000

PLM INTERNATIONAL, INC.                 GUARANTY BUSINESS CREDIT
Seller                                  CORPORATION, Purchaser



By:  /s/ Robert N. Tidball              By:  /s/ Ronald D. Murff
Title:  Chairman of the Board           Title:  Chief Financial Officer
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the lim ited circumstances set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH CIRCUIT

____________ No. 97-40124

____________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ANTHONY RAY STEVENSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas

(4:96-CR-39) November 10, 1997 Before EMILIO M. GARZA, STEWART, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * AFFIRMED. See 5TH CIR. R. 47.6.
Exhibit 10.2


 





THIRD AMENDMENT TO

VOTING AGREEMENT


 


This Third Amendment to Voting Agreement (this
“Amendment”) is effective as of December 18, 2017 by and between Perceptron, Inc., a Michigan corporation (the Company”)
and Moab Partners, L.P. and Moab Capital Partners, LLC (collectively, the “Holders”). Capitalized terms not otherwise
defined herein have the meanings set forth in the Agreement (as defined below).


 


RECITALS


 


WHEREAS, the Company and the Holders are parties
to that certain Voting Agreement dated as of August 9, 2016, as amended by the First Amendment to Voting Agreement dated as of
November 17, 2016 and the Second Amendment to Voting Agreement dated as of May 31, 2017(the “Agreement”);


 


WHEREAS, the parties wish to further amend the
Agreement as set forth herein.


 


AGREEMENTS


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual
promises contained herein, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged,
the parties agree as follows:88


 


1.                 
Section 4(b)(vii) of the Agreement shall be amended and restated to read as follows:


 


(vii)       upon the appointment of a new President and Chief Executive Officer, by June 30, 2018, the new President
and Chief Executive Officer will be appointed to the Board to fill a vacancy left by the resignation of either Robert S. Oswald
or Terryll R. Smith, who will resign at that time to facilitate such appointment.


 


2.                 
If there is any inconsistency or ambiguity between this Amendment and the Agreement, this Amendment shall control in all respects.


 


3.                 
Except as is specifically set forth in this Amendment, the remaining provisions of the Agreement are not otherwise modified or
amended, and all such provisions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.


 


4.                 
This Amendment may be executed in as many counterparts as may be deemed necessary and convenient, and by the different parties
hereto on separate counterparts, and each of which, when so executed, shall be deemed an original, and all such counterparts shall
constitute one and the same instrument.


 


[Signature Page Follows]


 






    1 


     


    

 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed
this Amendment as of the date set forth above.


 


Perceptron,
Inc.


 


 


By: /s/ David L. Watza


Name: David L. Watza


Title: President and Chief Executive Officer


 


 


MOAB PARTNERS, L.P.


 


 


By: /s/ Michael Rothenberg


Name: Michael Rothenberg


Title: General Partner of Moab GP LLC, the


General
Partner of Moab Partners, LP


 


 


MOAB CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC


 


 


By: /s/ Michael Rothenberg


Name: Michael Rothenberg


Title: President


 




 


 


 


2
#### R. Alexander ACOSTA *, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Matthew HUTCHESON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-35076

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted January 16, 2018 **

Filed January 22, 2018

Michael Schloss, D. Marc Sarata, LABR — U.S. Department of Labor, Office of the Solicitor, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Matthew Hutcheson, Pro Se

Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 R. Alexander Acosta has been substituted for his predecessor Thomas Perez as Secretary of Labor under Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2).

**

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral, argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM ***

Matthew Hutcheson appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in the U.S. Secretary of Labor’s action against him, alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, *Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc. v. Fung,*710 F.3d 1020, 1030 (9th Cir. 2013), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Hutcheson failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he engaged in a prohibited transaction under ERISA in violation of his fiduciary duties. *See*29 U.S.C. §§ 1104, 1106; *see also United States v. Hutcheson,*603 Fed.Appx. 613, 614 (9th Cir. 2015) (affirming, *inter alia,*Hutcheson’s conviction for wire fraud counts related to the ERISA-covered plans at issue in this action).

To the extent Hutcheson’s “motion for declaratory relief’ or request for an evi-dentiary hearing may be construed as requests to take discovery in order to oppose summary judgment, Hutcheson failed to comply with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d). *See*Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d); *Tatum v. City & County of San Francisco,*441 F.3d 1090, 1100 (9th Cir. 2006) (a party seeking additional time for discovery is required to “identify by affidavit the specific facts that further discovery would reveal, and explain why those facts would preclude summary judgment”).

We reject as without merit Hutcheson’s contentions that the district court erred by granting summary judgment notwithstanding his pending motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and that the double jeopardy clause applies to this action.

We do not consider issues or arguments not specifically and distinctly raised in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009); *United States v. Elias,**311921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”).

Hutcheson’s request for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 19) is denied.

AFFIRMED.

***

 xhiS disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
No. 11-8976.

#### Smith et al. *v.*United States.

C. A. D. C. Cir. Motion of petitioners for leave to proceed *informa pauperis*granted. Certiorari granted limited to Question II presented by the petition.
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 105 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  1st Session

                             H. J. RES. 105

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 1998, and 
                          for other purposes.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 105

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 1998, and 
                          for other purposes.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That section 106(3) of Public 
Law 105-46 is further amended by striking ``November 10, 1997'' and 
inserting in lieu thereof ``November 14, 1997'', and each provision 
amended by sections 122 and 123 of such public law shall be applied as 
if ``November 14, 1997'' was substituted for ``October 23, 1997''.

            Passed the House of Representatives November 10 
      (legislative day, November 9), 1997.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
Order entered August 23, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-01306-CR

JULIAN TERENCE MARTIN JR, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 6

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F13-59221-X

ORDER

The Court DENIES appellant’s motion asking this court to mandate the trial court to 

forward appellant’s appeal brief.”

We ORDER the Clerk to send a copy of this order to Julian Terence Martin, Jr, TDCJ 

No. 02026170, Telford Unit, 3899 State Hwy 98, New Boston, Texas, 75570.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
EXHIBIT 32.1



                  Certification Required by 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350
                 (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

     In connection  with the filing by Assure Data,  Inc. (the "Company") of the
Quarterly  Report  on Form  10-Q for the  period  ending  March  31,  2008  (the
"Report"), the undersigned hereby certifies:

         1.       The Report fully  complies  with the  requirements  of Section
                  13(a) and 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 respects,  the financial
                  condition and results of operations of the Company.



                                       Date:  June 4, 2008

                                        /s/  Kevin B. Halter
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Kevin B. Halter, Chief Executive Officer
                                       and Chief Financial Officer
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

EUGENIO L. RODRIGUEZ,

 

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

State.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-21-00146-CR

Appeal from the

109th District Court

of Andrews County, Texas 

(TC# 1532)

O R D E R

The clerk’s record was filed in this office on November 22, 2021, and upon further 

review of the record, it appears that the Final Order Finding Jail-Time Credit and Denying Other 

Relief does not contain the correct month it was signed.

Therefore, the Court ORDERS that the Honorable Tryon D. Lewis, Presiding Judge for 

the 109th District Court of Andrews County, Texas, enter a corrected order including the month 

the order was signed. The corrected order shall be filed with the District Clerk of Andrews 

County, Texas, and the District Clerk shall prepare a supplemental clerk’s record which will 

include the corrected order and file it with this Court on or before December 13, 2021.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 23rd day of November, 2021.

PER CURIAM

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox and Alley, JJ.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.6

                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

   We hereby consent to the use in this Registration Statement on Form S-4 of
NextMedia Operating, Inc. of our report dated May 4, 2001 relating to the
financial statements and financial statement schedules of Beaverkettle Company,
which appears in such Registration Statement. We also consent to the reference
to us under the heading "Experts" in such Registration Statement.

HALL, KISTLER & COMPANY LLP
Certified Public Accountants

Canton, Ohio
March 15, 2002
U

. S

. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

PUBLIC MEETING ON ENE RGY CONSERVATION STANDARD S

PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS FOR GENERAL SERVICE LAMPS (GSLS)

U.S. Department of Energy

1000 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20 585

Tues day

, January 20 , 201 5

Room 8E

- 089

Purpose

The Department of Energy (DOE) is holding this public meeting to discuss the energy

conservation standard s preliminary analysis for GSLs . DOE will also explain its plans for

the remaining analyses for the rulemaking. Lastly, DOE will seek comment on the

rulemaking, including planned methodologies, assumptions, and data sources.

Agenda

9:00 am

- 9: 30 am Welcome ; In troductions; Agenda Review; Opening

Statements ; Overview

Lucy d e B utts , DOE Lighting Project Manager

9: 30 am

- 10 : 30 am Scope of Coverage ; Scope of Metrics

Aisha Husain , Navigant Consulting, Inc.

10: 30 am

- 1 0 : 45 am Break

10 : 45 am

- 11 : 15 am Market and Technology Assessment; Screening

Analysis

Aisha Husain, Navigant Consulting, Inc.

11 : 1 5 am

- 1 1 : 45 p m Engineering Analysis

Maureen Kienle, Navigant Consulting, Inc.

1 1 : 45 p m

- 1 2 : 00 p m Product Price Determination

Maureen Kienle, Navigant Consulting, Inc.

12: 00 pm

- 1:00 pm Lunch

1: 00 p m

- 1: 3 0 pm Ene rgy Use Analysis and Life

- Cycle Cost Analysi s

Colleen Kantner

, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory

1 : 3 0 pm

- 2 : 00 pm Shipments Analysis and National Impacts Analysi s

Brian Gerke, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory

2 : 00 pm

- 2: 30 pm Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis, NOPR

Analyses

Hayden Cook , Navigant Consulting, Inc.

2: 30 pm

- 2: 4 5 pm Closing Remarks

Lucy deButts, DOE Lighting Project Manager
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 21
 
                     SUBSIDIARIES OF THE WISER OIL COMPANY
 
T.W.O.C., Inc.
Maljamar Wiser, Inc.
Wiser Oil Company of Canada
Wiser Delaware LLC
Maljamar Development Partnership, L.P.
#### Damon STARKS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. ED 105138

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION THREE.

Filed: January 16, 2018

FOR APPELLANT: Alexandria A. Shah, Public Defender Office, 1010 Market St., Ste. 1100, St. Louis, MO 63101.

FOR RESPONDENT: Joshua D. Haw-ley, Attorney General, Robert J. Bartholomew, Asst. Atty. Gen., P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102.

Before Gary M. Gaertner, Jr., P. J., Robert M. Clayton III, J., Angela T. Quigless, J.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Damon Starks appeals the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. We find that the motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the motion court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).