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





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of TXP Corporation (the "Company") on
      Form
      10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael C. Shores,
      Chief Executive Officer and Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 and 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.





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





August
      9,
      2007


*/s/ Michael
                C. Shores*Michael
                C. Shores
              Chief
                Executive*Officer (Principal Executive
                Officer)*
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service Board of Governors

In person and by telephone vote on February 25, 2009, a majority of the members contacted and voting, the Board of Governors of the United States Postal Service voted unanimously to close to public observation its meeting held in Washington, DC via teleconference. The Board determined that no earlier public notice was possible.

## Items Considered

1. Financial matters.

2. Strategic issues.

3. Pricing.

4. Personnel matters and compensation issues.

5. Governors' Executive Session—Discussion of prior agenda items and Board Governance.

*General Counsel Certification:*                     The General Counsel of the United States Postal Service has certified that the meeting was properly closed under the Government in the Sunshine Act.                

*Contact Person for More Information:*                     Requests for information about the meeting should be addressed to the Secretary of the Board, Julie S. Moore, at (202) 268-4800.                

Julie S. Moore,

Secretary.

 [FR Doc. E9-6331 Filed 3-18-09; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service 

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. 

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting. 

# SUMMARY:

An open meeting of the Area 2 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service. 

# DATES:

The meeting will be held Wednesday, May 20, 2009. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Marianne Ayala at 1-888-912-1227 or 954-423-7978. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Area 2 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held Wednesday, May 20, 2009, at 2:30 p.m. Eastern Time via telephone conference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate must be made with Marianne Ayala. For more information please contact Mrs. Ayala at 1-888-912-1227 or 954-423-7978, or write TAP Office, 1000 South Pine Island Road, Suite 340, Plantation, FL 33324, or post comments to the Web site:                     *http://www.improveirs.org.*

The agenda will include various IRS issues. 

March 17, 2009. 

Shawn F. Collins, 

Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.

[FR Doc. E9-6367 Filed 3-23-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
Amendment No. 2 to Aircraft Time Sharing Agreement



 Exhibit 10.106 
 AMENDMENT NO. 2 
 TO 
 AIRCRAFT TIME SHARING AGREEMENT 
 THIS AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO AIRCRAFT TIME SHARING AGREEMENT (the “Amendment”) is made and entered into as of the 31st day of October, 2009, by and between Las Vegas Jet, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company
(“Provider”), and Stephen A. Wynn, an individual (“Lessee”) and amends that certain Aircraft Time Sharing Agreement, dated as of November 25, 2002, as amended by that certain Amendment No. 1 to Aircraft
Time Sharing Agreement, dated January 1, 2004, by and between Provider and Lessee (collectively, the “Agreement”). 
 In consideration of the mutual promises, agreements, covenants, warranties, representations and provisions contained herein, the parties agree as follows: 
 1. Defined Terms. 
 Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Agreement. 
 2. Terms Remain the
Same. 
 Except as specifically set forth herein, the terms and conditions set forth in the Agreement shall remain in
full force and effect. 
 3. Amendments. 
 a. Definition of the “Aircraft.” The term “Aircraft” as defined in Section 1 of the Agreement is hereby amended to mean any aircraft purchased, leased or otherwise acquired by
Provider during the Term of the Agreement. 
 b. Definition of “Expiration Date.” The Term “Expiration Date”
as defined in Section 2 of the Agreement is hereby amended to mean the earliest of (i) October 30, 2014, (ii) termination of lessee’s employment with Wynn Resorts, Limited or (iii) thirty (30) days notice of
termination by either party to the other. 
 c. Section 4 of the Agreement is amended to add Section 4(d) which shall
read as follows: “(d) Lessee and Provider agree Lessee shall not be obligated to deliver to Provider the Rent due hereunder; rather Rent shall be included as taxable compensation to Lessee.” 
 4. Entire Agreement. This Amendment and the Agreement constitute the entire agreement between the parties pertaining to the subject matter
contained in the Agreement as amended by this Amendment. 
 5. Governing Law. This Amendment shall be governed by and construed in
accordance with the laws of the State of Nevada, regardless of the choice of law provisions of Nevada or any other jurisdiction. 







 6. Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which
independently shall be deemed to be an original. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have each caused this Amendment to be
duly executed as of the day and year first written above. 
  

							
	LAS VEGAS JET, LLC	 		 	STEPHEN A. WYNN
				
	By:	 	 /s/ Marc D. Schorr
	 		 	 /s/ Stephen A. Wynn

				
	Name:	 	 Marc D. Schorr
	 		 	
				
	Title:	 	 Chief Operating Officer
	 		 	

  

 - 2 -
Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
 pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
 Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
 
 Securities and Exchange Commission
 Washington, DC
  
 The undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Pilot
 Financial, Inc., Inc. do hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
 Quarterly Report of Pilot Financial, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the fiscal
 quarter ended March 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 such Annual Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
 respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Pilot Financial,
 Inc.
  
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
 provided to Pilot Financial, Inc. and will be retained by Pilot
 Financial, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
 Commission or its staff upon request.
 
 
 /s/ Ronald R. Shenkin
 President
 Chief Executive Officer
 
 Date: June 30,2004
#### State of West Virginia *v.*Charley Naylor *et al.*

(No. 7471)

Submitted February 28, 1933.

Decided March 7, 1933.

*J. E. Springston,*for plaintiff in error.

*H. B. Lee,*Attorney General, and *W. Elliott Nefflen,*Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Hatoher, Judge.-

Appellant Naylor was jointly indicted, tried and convicted with Carl Hall and John Hall for a consummated conspiracy to blow up a gas main of United Fuel Gas Company. The state proved that the two Halls were seen in the proximity *447of the main on the night it was blown up, with something in a coffee sack, and that both Halls were drunk and Carl declared they were going to see how high they could blow the gas line. Naylor was not seen with them on that occasion. The attorney general relies specifically on the testimony of Cecil Hall, Lola Stanley and W. S. Pullen to connect Naylor with the crime. Naylor contends the evidence of those witnesses is insufficient.

Cecil Hall was a witness for the state. He gave no incriminating evidence against Naylor. Counsel for the state read to Hall a written statement which did incriminate Naylor and asked Hall if he made it. Hall said the signature looked “a right smart” like his, but denied recollection of executing the statement and refused to confirm it. The statement was not even offered in evidence. The reliance of the state on Cecil Hall is not well placed.

Lola Stanley heard Carl Hall say he blew up the gas line and Charley Naylor helped him. It is not clear from the record that Naylor was present at that conversation. Mrs. Stanley referred to a later conversation^ with both Hall and Naylor on the same subject, but could not recall that Hall then charged Naylor with participation in the conspiracy. The evidence of Mrs. Stanley is not exact enough to be admissible against Naylor.

W. S. Pullen testified that several weeks before the gas line was blown up he heard John Hall say something about an investigation of some charges (blowing up another gas line) against him but did not recall the details. Another witness who heard that conversation testified that Hall then threatened to shoot more lines if the gas company did not give him free gas. Naylor came with Hall to see Pullen but took no part in the conversation. The above testimony goes no further than to associate Naylor with “bad company” and show his knowledge of Hall’s threat.

The evidence against Naylor signally fails to sustain conviction, and the judgment below is reversed, the verdict set aside, and a new trial awarded him.

*Reversed; verdict set aside; new trial awarded.*
EXHIBIT 32

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

In  connection  with the  Annual  Report of Kopr  Resources  Corp.,  a  Delaware
corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-K for the year ended October 31, 2010 as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"),  the undersigned,  the Principal Executive Officer,  hereby certifies
pursuant  to 18 U.S.C.  Sec.  1350 as adopted  pursuant  to  Section  906 of the
Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 that, to the undersigned's knowledge:

     (1)  the  Report  of the  Company  filed  today  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 operation of
          the Company.

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

Date: January 6, 2011


By: /s/ Andrea Schlectman
   -----------------------------------------------------------------
Name:  Andrea Schlectman
Title: President, Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial
       and Accounting Officer
# THE STATE OF TEXAS

M A N D A T E

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

TO THE 7TH DISTRICT COURT OF SMITH COUNT Y, GREETING:

Before our Court of Appeals for the 12th Court of Appeals District of Texas, on the 5th
day of August , 2015 , the cause up on appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

BRANDON BENARD BRIGH T , Appellant

NO. 12

- 15

- 00045

- CR; Trial Court No. 007

- 0861

- 14

By per curiam opinion.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

was determined; and therein our said Court made its order in thes e words:

“ THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record; and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that this court is without jurisdiction of the appeal, and that the appeal should be dismissed.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUD GED and DECREED by this court that this appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed for want of jurisdiction ; and that this decision be certified to

the court below for observance. ”

WHEREAS, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeal s for the Twelfth Court of Appeals District of Texas in this behalf, and in all things have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS, THE HONORABLE JAMES T. WORTHEN , Chief Justice of our Court of Appeals for the Twelfth Court of Appeals District, with the Seal thereof affixed, at the City of Tyler, this the 29 th day of September , 2015.

PAM ESTES , CLERK

By:

_______________________________ Chief Deputy Clerk
Order entered October 9 , 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 13
- 00830
- CR
EX PARTE JOSE AMAYA On Appeal from the 265th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. WX11
- 90031
- R 

### O RDER On Septe mber 11 , 2013, this Court ordered the trial court to file a supplemental clerk’s record containing: (1) the June 26, 2012 order denying appellant’s application for writ of habeas
corpus ; (2) a ppellant’s August 24, 2011 application for writ of habeas corpus and memorandum of law in support of application for writ of habeas corpus, including all attachments; (3) the State’s September 22, 2011 response to the application for writ of habeas corpus, including all attachments; (4) the c ontents of the file from tr ial court no. F03

- 34685

- R; and (5) t he trial court’s rule 25.2 certification of appellant’s right to appeal. On September 11, 2013, we received a supplemental record containing the trial court’s rule 25.2 certification and the June 26, 2013 order denying habeas corpus relief. We have not, however, received the remaining documents. The appeal cannot proceed until we have received all of the documents ordered. Accordingly, w e ORDER Dallas County District Clerk Gary Fitzsimmons to file, by OCTOBER 18 , 2013 , a supplemental record containing copies of: (1) appellant’s August 24,2011 application for writ of habeas corpus and memorandum of law in support of application for writ of habeas corpus, including all attachments; (2) the State’s September 22, 2011 res ponse to the application for writ of habeas corpus, including all attachments; and (3) the contents of the file from trial court no. F03

- 34685

- R. FAILURE OF GARY FITZSIMMONS, DALLAS COUNTY DISTRICT CLERK, TO FILE THE SUPPLEMENTAL RECORD CONTAINING THE ENUM ERATED DOCUMENTS BY THE DATE HEREIN SET FORTH MAY RESULT IN THE ISSUANCE OF A SHOW CAUSE ORDER AND/OR A JUDGMENT OF CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CONTEMPT.
We DIRECT the Clerk to send a copy of this order, by electronic transmission, Gary Fitzsimmons, Dallas County District Clerk. We further DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to the Honorable Mark Stoltz, Presiding Judge, 265th Judicial District Court; the Dallas County District Clerk’s Office, Criminal Records Division; and to counsel for all parties.

/s/ DAVID L. BRIDGES PRESIDING JUSTICE
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A19A1580. ANTHONY PUGH v. THE STATE.

In 1993, Anthony Pugh was convicted of armed robbery, aggravated assault,

possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, and possession of a

firearm by a convicted felon. He was sentenced to life in prison. This Court affirmed

his convictions in 1994. Pugh v. State, 214 Ga. App. 470 (448 SE2d 16) (1994). In

February 2018, Pugh filed a pro se motion to correct a void sentence. The trial court

denied Pugh’s motion, and he appeals.

A direct appeal may lie from an order denying a motion to vacate or correct a

void sentence only if the defendant raises a colorable claim that the sentence is, in

fact, void. Harper v. State, 286 Ga. 216, 217 n.1 (686 SE2d 786) (2009); Burg v.

State, 297 Ga. App. 118, 119 (676 SE2d 465) (2009). “Motions to vacate a void

sentence generally are limited to claims that – even assuming the existence and

validity of the conviction for which the sentence was imposed – the law does not

authorize thatsentence, most typically because it exceedsthe mostsevere punishment

for which the applicable penal statute provides.” von Thomas v. State, 293 Ga. 569,

572 (2) (748 SE2d 446) (2013). Thus, when a sentence is within the statutory range

of punishment, it is not void. Jones v. State, 278 Ga. 669, 670 (604 SE2d 483) (2004).

At the time of Pugh’s crimes, the armed robbery statute provided: “A person

convicted of the offense of armed robbery shall be punished by death or

imprisonment for life or by imprisonment for not less than five nor more than 20

years.” Former OCGA § 16-8-41 (b). Pugh’s life sentence therefore fell within the

statutory range.

Pugh argued that the trial court improperly relied on his 1990 conviction for

July 08, 2019
possession of a firearm by a convicted felon to support both his 1993 conviction for

the same crime and his recidivist sentence. However, the trial court was authorized

to sentence Pugh to a life sentence notwithstanding any recidivism. Pugh has

therefore not raised a colorable void sentence claim, and this appeal is hereby

DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

07/08/2019
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION1350, AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Carroll ShelbyInternational Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB/A for the periodending September 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John Luft, President of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes- Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)               TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 
| Date: November 15, 2004 |   | /s/  JOHN LUFT |   |
|-------------------------|--------|--------------------------|--------|
|                    |   | John Luft, President     |   |

 

----
**SEALE AND BEERS, CPAs**

*PCAOB & CPAB REGISTERED AUDITORS*

www.sealebeers.com

**REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

**To the Board of Directors**

**Soefl, Inc.**

**(A Development Stage Company)**

We have audited the accompanying balance sheets of Soefl, Inc. (A Development Stage Company) as of December 31, 2010 and 2009, and the related statements of operations, stockholders’ equity (deficit) and cash flows for the years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009 and since inception on October 15, 2008 through December 31, 2010. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company’s management.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audits.  

We conduct our audits in accordance with standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States).  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audits to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement.  An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements.  An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation.  We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Soefl, Inc. (A Development Stage Company) as of December 31, 2010 and 2009, and the related statements of operations, stockholders’ equity (deficit) and cash flows for the years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009 and since inception on October 15, 2008 through December 31, 2010, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

The accompanying financial statements have been prepared assuming that the Company will continue as a going concern.  As discussed in Note 4 to the financial statements, the Company does not have significant cash or other material assets, nor does it have an established source of revenues sufficient to cover its operating cost, which raises substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern.  Management’s plans concerning these matters are also described in Note 4.  The financial statements do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of this uncertainty.

***/s/ Seale and Beers, CPAs***

Seale and Beers, CPAs

Las Vegas, Nevada

March 29, 2011

*50 S. Jones Blvd. Suite 202 Las Vegas, NV 89107 Phone: (888)727-8251 Fax: (888)782-2351*