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



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Silver Falcon Mining, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to the best of his knowledge, that:



1.     The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2009 (the "Report") of the Company complies in all material respects 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 Company.



/s/ Pierre Quilliam

Pierre Quilliam,

Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer



Date:  March 30, 2010
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 108 

To require a guidance clarity statement on certain agency guidance, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 26, 2023 

Mr. LANKFORD (for himself, Ms. SINEMA, Mr. JOHNSON, Mr. RISCH, and Mr. 

BRAUN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To require a guidance clarity statement on certain agency 

guidance, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Guidance Clarity Act 

5 of 2023’’. 

6 SEC. 2. GUIDANCE CLARITY STATEMENT REQUIRED. 

7 (a) REQUIREMENT.—Each agency, as defined in sec8 tion 551 of title 5, United States Code, shall include a 

9 guidance clarity statement as described in subsection (b) 

10 on any guidance issued by that agency under section 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 108 IS

1 553(b)(3)(A) of title 5, United States Code, on and after 

2 the date that is 30 days after the date on which the Direc3 tor of the Office of Management and Budget issues the 

4 guidance required under subsection (c). 

5 (b) GUIDANCE CLARITY STATEMENT.—A guidance 

6 clarity statement required under subsection (a) shall— 

7 (1) be displayed prominently on the first page 

8 of the document; and 

9 (2) include the following: ‘‘The contents of this 

10 document do not have the force and effect of law 

11 and do not, of themselves, bind the public or the 

12 agency. This document is intended only to provide 

13 clarity to the public regarding existing requirements 

14 under the law or agency policies.’’. 

15 (c) OMB GUIDANCE.—Not later than 90 days after 

16 the date of enactment of this Act, the Director of the Of17 fice of Management and Budget shall issue guidance to 

18 implement this Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
INTERNATIONAL COLD STORAGE, INC., Michael Matras, and Joel Barthel, Appellants, v. ALL-AMERICAN FARMS, INC. a/k/a All American Farms, Inc., Appellee.

No. 4D17-1054

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[February 1, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Jonathan LEWIN, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Aaron Goldman, Appellant, v. Richard GOLDMAN, Kenneth Goldman, Mitchel Goldman, Ethan Goldman, and Andrea Carless, Appellees.

No. 3D16-2539

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed December 27, 2017.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
     This  schedule  contains  summary  financial information extracted from the
Companys  Consolidated  Balance  Sheet  at  September  30, 1999 and Consolidated
Statement  of  Operations  for the three months ended September 30, 1999, and is
qualified  in  its  entirety  by  reference  to  such  financial  statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                          JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                            SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                        4812
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                17212
<ALLOWANCES>                                   426
<INVENTORY>                                   5015
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             27967
<PP&E>                                       37153
<DEPRECIATION>                               25884
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               40320
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        13141
<BONDS>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                       492
<OTHER-SE>                                   24802
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 40320
<SALES>                                       7604
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             15684
<CGS>                                         3790
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 8044
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 4
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              25
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (2401)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   150
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (2551)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (2551)
<EPS-BASIC>                                 (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (.05)


</TABLE>
If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

- 1

- 

### S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee, UNPUBLISHED September 28, 2023

v No. 359936 Ogemaw Circuit Court

ANTHONY JEFFREY VOGEL, LC No. 19

- 005320

- FH

Defendant

- Appellant.

Before: S HAPIRO

, P .J., and M. J. K ELLY and C AMERON , JJ.

S HAPIRO

, P .J. ( concurring ).

I concur in affirming defendant’s convictions and sentences

. 1 I write separately to urge the Supreme Court to reexamine its holding in People v Watkins , 491 Mich 450; 818 NW2d 296 (2012) , that MCL 7 6 8.27a does not violate separation

- of

- power principles. This holding was supported by the Court’s conclusion that

, despite the admissibility provided MCL 7 6 8.27a, a defendant was still shielded from overly

- prejudicial evidence under MRE 403 . See Watkins

, 491

Mich at 481

- 491. In practice, however, evidence meeting the statutory criteria is rarely, if ever, excluded pursuant to MRE 403. The li kely reason is that the fundamental prejudice arising from such evidence is that it constitutes propensity evidence, but per Watkins , “when applying MRE 403 to evidence admissible under MCL 768.27a, courts must weigh the propensity inference in

favor of th e evidence ’ s probative value rather than its prejudicial effect.” Watkins , 491 Mich at
487 . I also believe that the Supreme Court should review this Court’s holding in People v Payne

, 304 Mich App 667, 676; 850 NW2d 601 (2014) , that the 25

- year mandatory minimum prescribed by MCL 750.520b(2)(b) does not constitute cruel or unusual punishment as applied to juvenile

offenders. The Supr e me Court has not yet addressed this issue

, and in light of People v Parks , 510

1 While I disagree with the majority that defendant’s statements to the police denying the

accusations were properly excluded , I conclude that any error on this matter was harmless. I agree with the majority opinion in all other respects.- 2

-

Mich 225; 987 NW2d 161 (2022) , mandatory lengthy sentences of minors are of questionable constitutionality.

/s/ Douglas B. Shapiro
Barbara SALVIN, Appellant, v. Bruce D. KELLEY III, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-1972

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed December 6, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Lee Andrew SHIELDS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-3794

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed November 1, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32
----------




                           CERTIFICATIONS 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
       ---------------------------------------------------------



     The following statement is provided by the undersigned to accompany
the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2005,
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be
deemed filed pursuant to any provision of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 or any other securities law:

     Each of the undersigned certifies that the foregoing Report on
Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m) and that the information
contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of JMB/245 PARK AVENUE
ASSOCIATES, LTD.





By: /s/  Patrick J. Meara         By: /s/  Gailen J. Hull
    ----------------------            ----------------------------
    Patrick J. Meara                  Gailen J. Hull
    Chief Executive Officer           Chief Financial Officer and
                                      Principal Accounting Officer
Exhibit 10.4
 
 Amendment First Amendment Effective Date Issuer Administrative Agent Purchaser
  Securities Purchase Agreement
   Defined Terms
 Amendment to Section 5.15
 Remedies
 Representations and Warranties




---



##### 



Amended Securities Purchase Agreement




---



##### 



No Amendment/Waivers
 Expenses
 Affirmation of Existing Transaction Documents
 Effectiveness
 (a)
    
    Amendment. The Administrative Agent shall have
received two (2) copies of this Amendment duly executed and delivered by the
Administrative Agent, the Required Purchasers and the Issuer.




---



##### 



(b)
    
    Payment of Fees and Expenses. The Issuer shall have
paid all costs, fees and expenses owing in connection with this Amendment and
the other Transaction Documents and due to the Administrative Agent
(including, without limitation, reasonable legal fees and expenses of one
legal counsel).
 Governing Law
 Counterparts




---



##### 



TRM CORPORATION, as the IssuerBy:
Name:
    
    /s/ Richard B. Stern

Richard B. SternTitle:
    
    President & Chief Executive OfficerLAMPE, CONWAY & CO., LLC, asAdministrative AgentBy:
Name:
    
    /s/ Richard F. Conway

Richard F. ConwayTitle:
    
    Managing MemberLC CAPITAL MASTER FUND, LTD., asPurchaserBy
Name:
    
    /s/ Richard F. Conway

Richard F. ConwayTitle:
    
    Director
Exhibit 8.1

List of Subsidiaries of the Registrant



| |  |  | Changyou.com (HK) Limited, incorporated in Hong Kong.
| | - |  | -----------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Beijing AmazGame Age Internet Technology Co., Ltd., incorporated in the PRC.
| | - |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Changyou.com (US), Inc., incorporated in the United States.
| | - |  | -----------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Changyou.com (UK) Co., Ltd., incorporated in the United Kingdom.
| | - |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Changyou My Sdn.Bhd, incorporated in Malaysia.
| | - |  | ----------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Changyou.com Korea Limited, incorporated in South Korea.
| | - |  | --------------------------------------------------------
Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed April 1 4 , 2016

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 16

- 00134

- CR

CHARLES ERIC DEVEN PORT , Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 182nd District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1400496

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant entered a guilty plea to sexual assault. In accordance with the terms of a plea bargain agreement with the State, the trial court sentenced appellant

to imprisonment for 12 years and dismissed two cases pending against him

. We dismiss the appeal. The trial court entered a certification of the defendant’s right to appeal in which the court certified that this is a plea bargain case, and the defendant has no right of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). The trial court’s certification is2

include d in the record on appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d). The record supports
the trial court’s certification. See Dears v. State , 154 S.W.3d 610, 615 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices McCally and Brown

. Do Not Publish

— Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
Christopher WITHERINGTON, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-2913

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

October 26, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Alan KATE, MD v. Ronald A. KARP and Law Office of Karp, Wigodsky, Norwind & Gold, P.A.

NO. 2018-C-0136

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 9, 2018

Denied.
*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. 

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 02-10254

_____________________

PEOPLES BENEFIT LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

DALE LARSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

 

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth

(USDC No. 4:01-CV-900-A)

 

July 30, 2002

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and DEMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

After considering the record, briefs, and oral argument in

this case, we hold that this litigation should be stayed pending

arbitration. Although it is clear from the district court’s good

opinion that it carefully considered the merits of this case, we

think that it nonetheless erred by failing to give proper weight to

(1) the interconnected nature of the four contemporaneously

executed agreements at issue and (2) the broad “related to”
2

language contained in the arbitration clause of the Conditional

Guaranty. See Personal Security & Safety Systems, Inc. v.

Motorola, Inc., __ F.3d __, 2002 WL 1413702 at *5 (5th Cir. July 1,

2002) (“In sum, we hold that, where the parties include a broad

arbitration provision in an agreement that is ‘essential’ to the

overall transaction, we will presume that they intended the clause

to reach all aspects of the transaction –- including those aspects

governed by other contemporaneously executed agreements that are

part of the same transaction.”); Neal v. Hardee’s Food Sys., Inc.,

918 F.2d 34, 38 (5th Cir. 1990) (“We hold that when the parties

included a broad arbitration clause in the essential License

Agreements covering ‘any and all disputes,’ they intended the

clause to reach all aspects of the parties’ relationship including

the purchase of the physical properties.”). 

The fact that Larson was not a signatory on each of the four

agreements does not distinguish this case from Neal and Personal

Security. With an eye towards the Larson Group’s primary liability

for the debt under the Security and Reimbursement Agreement,

Peoples Benefit deliberately chose to limit Larson’s individual

liability in the Conditional Guaranty. The Conditional Guaranty

specifically directs that the two agreements should be interpreted

together. Both contracts contain a broad arbitration provision.

The parties negotiated the Conditional Guaranty as part of their

overall goal to hold Larson Group liable broadly but limit Larson’s

individual liability to cases of criminal conduct or breaches of
3

the Employment Agreement. As a consequence, claims that Larson

fraudulently induced Peoples Benefit to participate in this

transaction should be arbitrated.

We therefore reverse the district court and remand for the

entry of a stay pending arbitration.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Exhibit 99.1



                     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 Surge Components,
Inc.  (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending February
28,  2003  as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission  on
the  date hereof (the "Report"), Ira Levy, Chief Executive  Officer
and  President  of  the Company certifies, pursuant  to  18  U.S.C.
Section  1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-
Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:

           (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements  of
Section  13(a) or Section 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.


July 14, 2003                          /s/Ira Levy
                                       ---------------
                                       Name:    Ira Levy
                                       Title: Chief Executive Officer and
                                              Chief Financial Officer
                                             (Principal Executive Officer
                                              and Principal Financial
                                              Officer)



      This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section
906  of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the
extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed  filed
by  the  Company  for  purposes of Section  18  of  the  Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
Jamie COFFEY, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-2642

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

August 16, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mandamus is denied.
Exhibit
      32.2








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 Medical Discoveries, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
      Dierdra J. Burgess, Controller, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
      as
      adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to
      the
      best of my knowledge and belief:





(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.








Dated:
      November 14, 2006






/s/
      Deirdra J. Burgess


Deirdra
      J. Burgess


Controller








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 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. The foregoing
      certifications are accompanying the Company’s Form 10-QSB solely pursuant to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
      Section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not being
      filed
      as part of the Form 10-QSB or as a separate disclosure
      document.
TEXOIL, INC.                         EXHIBIT 10.1

                           PROMISSORY NOTE

$900,000.00                 HOUSTON, TEXAS            NOVEMBER 1, 1995

     FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned, TEXOIL, INC. (herein called "Maker"),
a Nevada corporation, promises to pay to the order of T. W. HOEHN, JR. AND BETTY
JOE HOEHN REVOCABLE TRUST, (herein called "Payee", which term shall herein in
every instance refer to any owner or holder of this note) the sum of NINE
HUNDRED THOUSAND AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($900,000.00), together with interest on the
principal hereof from time to time outstanding from the date hereof until paid,
at the per annum rate hereinafter stated, said principal and interest being
payable at 2302 Rue Adriane, La Jolla, California  92037 or at such other place
as Payee may hereafter designate in writing.

     The principal balance hereof advanced and from time to time remaining
unpaid shall bear interest during each day of the term of the loan evidenced
hereby at the per annum rate equal to the sum of (a) the prime commercial rate
(herein called "Prime Rate") from time to time announced by First Interstate
Bank of Texas ("FIBOT") at Houston, Texas as its Prime Rate, which interest rate
shall change when and as the Prime Rate shall change, effective at the close of
business on the day of such change, and (b) 2%.

     This Note is due and payable on February 1, 1996, unless later extended by
mutual agreement between the Maker and Payee.

     This Note is made and given in substitution for, and modifies and
supersedes in their entirety those six certain Promissory Notes by Maker to
Payee in the original principal amounts and dated as follows:

        $    700,000     November 22, 1993    (which superseded that certain
                                              Promissory Note dated October 1,
                                              1993 by Maker to Payee in the
                                              orignal principal amount of
                                              $700,000, further reduced to
                                              $300,000 by the principal
                                              payment of $400,000 on June 8,
                                              1994)
             100,000     December 3, 1993
             100,000     December 30, 1993
             250,000     January 13, 1994
              50,000     April 10, 1995
              50,000     July 10, 1995
              50,000     October 1, 1995

as modified and amended by that certain letter agreement dated March 25, 1994
(in the case of the first four notes listed above).  Payee acknowledges and
agrees to the foregoing by his acceptance hereof.

                              TEXOIL, INC.

                        By:    /s/ Walter L. Williams
                                   WALTER L. WILLIAMS
                                   Chairman
James BEAVER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-2935

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[November 22, 2017]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
EX PARTE C.E.M.

1151205 (CR-14-0577)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

October 14, 2016

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Cert. denied.