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 Sunway Global Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-Q/A for the period ended September 30, 2009, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Liu Bo,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section
1350 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
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 and is not being filed for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or
after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such
filing.




Date:
      May 13, 2010
            By:
            /s/
      Liu BoLiu
      BoChief
      Executive Officer(principal
      executive officer)
## Breadcrumb

-  Publications 
-  Articles 

#           What do we mean by accuracy in geomagnetic measurements?      

      January 1, 1990    

High accuracy is what distinguishes measurements made at the world's magnetic observatories from other types of geomagnetic measurements. High accuracy in determining the absolute values of the components of the Earth's magnetic field is essential to studying geomagnetic secular variation and processes at the core mantle boundary, as well as some magnetospheric processes. In some applications of geomagnetic data, precision (or resolution) of measurements may also be important. In addition to accuracy and resolution in the amplitude domain, it is necessary to consider these same quantities in the frequency and space domains. New developments in geomagnetic instruments and communications make real-time, high accuracy, global geomagnetic observatory data sets a real possibility. There is a growing realization in the scientific community of the unique relevance of geomagnetic observatory data to the principal contemporary problems in solid Earth and space physics. Together, these factors provide the promise of a 'renaissance' of the world's geomagnetic observatory system. ?? 1990.

## Citation Information

### Explore Search

                  - Natural Hazards

View All **
EXHIBIT 10.59



Paul Crowe

Chief Executive Officer

Molecular Imaging

2150 West Washington Street

Suite 110

San Diego,

California 92110



|cc: | Evan Mead Stone
|--- | ---------------

| | Seltzer Caplan McMahon Vitek Attn Kirk Ellis
| | --------------------------------------------



5thFebruary 2004



Dear Mr Crowe



Thank you for your letter of 26thJanuary 2004 advising us of your intention to issue New Securities under a Term Sheet from Ascendiant Securities LLC/Mercator Advisory Group LLC (and certain affiliates).



Under section 4.07 of the Securities Purchase Agreement dated July 12th, 2002 between Molecular Imaging Corporation (formerly, Mobile PET Systems Inc) (The Company), Ivan Bradbury and
InHealth Group SA (formerly Integrated Health Care Management SA) (the Agreement) which was subsequently assigned to Dragon Nominees Limited I am pleased to tell you that I am authorised by Dragon Nominees to advise you that Dragon Nominees
Limited wishes to exercise our right of first refusal to purchase all of the New Securities being issued on the terms and conditions set out in that Term Sheet.



This letter therefore serves as our official notice under 4.07 that we intend to step into the position set out in the Term Sheet.



Yours sincerely



Alan Gibson



On Behalf of Dragon Nominees Limited
Order filed January 26, 2021

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 20

- 00802

- CV

____________ AARON ELIZALDE , Appellant

V.
JORGE ISAAC RAMIREZ , Appellee

On Appeal from the 280th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Ca use No. 2020

- 43079



### O R D E R
The notice of appeal in this case was filed No vember 30, 2020

. To date, the filing fee of $20 5.00 has not been paid. No evidence that appellant is excused by statute or the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure from paying costs has been filed.
See Tex. R. App. P

. 5

. Therefore, the court issues the following order.
Appellant is ordered to pay th e filing fee in the amount of $20 5.00 to the

c lerk of this court on or before February 5, 2021. See Tex. R. App. P. 5. Ifappellant fai ls to timely pay the filing fee in accordance with this order, the appeal

will be dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Justices Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Jewell and Poissant.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

Pursuantto the requirements set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 ofTitle 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. § 1350), Paul L. Berns, thePresident and Chief Executive Officer of Allos Therapeutics, Inc., and David C.Clark, the Vice President, Finance of Allos Therapeutics, Inc. (the “Company”),each hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:

 

1.               The Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qfor the period ended September 30, 2010, to which this Certification isattached as Exhibit 32.1 (the “Quarterly Report”), fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and

 

2.               The information contained in the QuarterlyReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

 

Dated:November 4, 2010

 
|   | /s/  Paul L. Berns                            |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------|
|   | Paul  L. Berns                                |
|   | President  and Chief Executive Officer        |
|   | (Principal  Executive Officer)                |
|   |                                          |
|   |                                          |
|   | /s/  David C. Clark                           |
|   | David  C. Clark                               |
|   | Vice  President, Finance and Treasurer        |
|   | (Principal  Financial and Accounting Officer) |

 

Asigned original of this written statement has been provided to the Company andwill be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its Staff upon request. This certification “accompanies” the Form 10-Q to which it relates, isnot deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to beincorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the SecuritiesAct of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended(whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of anygeneral incorporation language contained in such filing.

 

----
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains editorial corrections of previously

published Presidential, Rule, Proposed Rule,

and Notice documents. These corrections are

prepared by the Office of the Federal

Register. Agency prepared corrections are

issued as signed documents and appear in

the appropriate document categories

elsewhere in the issue.

Corrections Federal Register

32288

Vol. 63, No. 113

Friday, June 12, 1998

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Immigration and Naturalization Service

and Executive Office for Immigration

Review

8 CFR Parts 3 and 236

[INS No. 1855-97; AG Order No. 2152-98]

RIN 1115-AE88

Procedures for the Detention and

Release of Criminal Aliens by the

Immigration and Naturalization Service

and for Custody Redeterminations by

the Executive Office for Immigration

Review

Correction

In rule document 98–13178 beginning

on page 27441, in the issue of Tuesday,

May 19, 1998, make the following

corrections:

1. On page 27445, in the second

column, in the fourth line from the

bottom, ‘‘bona fied’’ should read ‘‘bona

fide’’.

2. On page 27445, in the third

column, in the 17th line, ‘‘form’’ should

read ‘‘from’’.

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-40047; File No. SR-NASD98-08]

Self Regulatory Organizations; Notice

of Filing of Proposed Rule Change and

Amendment No. 1 by the National

Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.

Relating to Trade Reporting Rules

Correction

In notice document 98–14921

beginning on page 30791, in the issue of

Friday, June 5, 1998, the docket number

is corrected to read as set forth above.

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
Rodrick Johnson SAMS, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D16-2002

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

DECEMBER 14, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
# L_2005039EN.01005701.xml

| 11.2.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 39/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.2.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 39/57

---

Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2185/2004 of 17 December 2004 opening for the year 2005 a tariff quota applicable to the importation into the European Community of certain goods originating in Norway resulting from the processing of agricultural products covered by Council Regulation (EC) No 3448/93

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 373 of 21 December 2004
  )

On page 13, in Annex II, in box 10 of the ‘Certificate — Mineral waters’:

for:

| ‘Place: | Oslo | 2004
  Year’, |
| --- | --- | --- |

‘Place:

Oslo

2004

Year’,

read:

| ‘Place: | Oslo | 2005
  Year’. |
| --- | --- | --- |

‘Place:

Oslo

2005

Year’.

---
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 15-12641

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 3:14-cr-00098-MCR-10

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

NASTASSJA N. SASSAU,

Defendant-Appellant.

__________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Florida

_________________________

(June 14, 2016)

Before MARTIN, JORDAN, and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Nastassja Sassau pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit money 

laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956 and one count of making a false 

statement in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy. She was sentenced to 30 months 

in prison plus three years of supervised release. Sassau filed a timely notice of 

Case: 15-12641 Date Filed: 06/14/2016 Page: 1 of 2 
2

appeal through her lawyer Sharon K. Wilson on June 11, 2015. On September 18, 

2015, Wilson filed a motion to withdraw from the appeal. The motion included a 

brief based on Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967), explaining

that Wilson had examined the record in Sassau’s case and concluded that an appeal 

would be wholly frivolous. In particular, the brief analyzed five potential issues 

that could have been raised on appeal and concluded that none had any merit. This 

Court’s Acting Clerk of Court then informed Sassau of her right to respond to 

Wilson’s motion. Sassau responded by filing a pro se brief raising issues related to 

the calculation of her sentence. 

Our independent review of the entire record reveals that Wilson’s assessment 

of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. This includes both the issues identified 

in Wilson’s brief and other issues that are apparent from Sassau’s pro se brief and 

the record in her case. Because independent examination of the entire record 

reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, 

and Sassau’s convictions and sentences are AFFIRMED.

Case: 15-12641 Date Filed: 06/14/2016 Page: 2 of 2
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-15-00297-CR

Daniel Garcia

v.

The State of Texas

On Appeal from the

214th District Court of Nueces County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 14-CR-1302-F

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

May 16, 2019
Exhibit
10.15


 


First
AMENDMENT TO Promissory note


 


THIS
FIRST Amendment (THE
“FIRST AMENDMENT”) DATED July 20, 2017, shall amend the Promissory note
(THE “NOTE”) dated AS OF April 6, 2017 AMONG NON-INVASIVE MONITORING
SYSTEMS, INC. (THE “MAKER”) AND Hsu Gamma Investments, l.p. (THE “PAYEE”)
AS NOTED BELOW.


 


RECITALS


 


WHEREAS,
Maker and Payee (collectively, the “Parties”) are parties to the Note which became effective on April 6, 2017; and


 


WHEREAS,
the Parties desire to amend the Note to extend the Maturity Date from July 31, 2017 until July 31, 2018.


 


NOW
THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises contained in the Note and this First Amendment and other
good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows:


 


AMENDMENT


 


1.
Section 1 of the Note is hereby amended and restated in its entirety as follows:


 


The
principal amount of the loan evidenced hereby, together with any accrued and unpaid interest, and any and all unpaid costs, fees
and expenses accrued, shall be due and payable on July 31, 2018 (the “Maturity Date”).


 


2.
Governing Law. This First Amendment shall be governed by the laws of the State of Florida without regard to its conflict of
laws rules or principles.


 


3.
Amendments. Except as expressly amended hereby, the Note shall remain unmodified and in full force and effect.


 


4.
Entire Agreement. This First Amendment and the Note constitute the entire agreement of the Parties with respect to the subject
matter hereof and supersede all prior understandings and writings between the Parties relating thereto.


 


5.
Interpretation. Any capitalized terms used in this Second Amendment but not otherwise defined shall have the meaning provided
in the Note.


 




    	 	 	 



    	 



    

 


6.
Counterparts. This First Amendment may be executed manually, electronically in Adobe® PDF file format, or by facsimile
by the Parties, in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be considered one and the same amendment and shall become effective
when a counterpart hereof shall have been signed by each of the Parties and delivered to the other Party.


 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, Borrower has duly executed this First Amendment to the Note and Security Note as of the 20th day of July,
2017.


 


	 	 	NON-INVASIVE
    MONITORING SYSTEMS, INC.
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	By:	/s/
    James J. Martin 
	 	 	Name:	James
    J. Martin
	 	 	Title:	Chief
    Financial Officer
	 	 	 	 
	Agreed and Accepted:	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	HSU GAMMA INVESTMENTS, L.P.	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	By:
    	/s/ Jane Hsiao	 	 	 
	Name:.	Jane
    H. Hsiao, Ph.D	 	 
	Title:	General
    Partner	 	 


 




    	 	 -2-
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4723 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for the recovery 

of improper overpayments resulting from certain Federally subsidized 

health insurance. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 10, 2016 

Ms. JENKINS of Kansas (for herself, Mr. TIBERI, Mr. ROSKAM, Mrs. BLACK, 

and Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas) introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 

for the recovery of improper overpayments resulting from 

certain Federally subsidized health insurance. 

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 ‘‘Protecting Taxpayers 

5 by Recovering Improper Obamacare Subsidy Overpay6 ments Act’’. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•HR 4723 IH

1 SEC. 2. RECOVERY OF IMPROPER OVERPAYMENTS RESULT2 ING FROM CERTAIN FEDERALLY SUBSIDIZED 

3 HEALTH INSURANCE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 36B(f)(2) of the Internal 

5 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking subpara6 graph (B). 

7 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.— 

8 (1) Clause (ii) of section 35(g)(12)(B) of such 

9 Code is amended by striking ‘‘, except that’’ and all 

10 that follows and inserting a period. 

11 (2) So much of paragraph (2) of section 36B(f) 

12 of such Code as precedes ‘‘advance payments’’ is 

13 amended to read as follows: 

14 ‘‘(2) EXCESS ADVANCE PAYMENTS.—If the’’. 

15 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

16 this subsection shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

17 December 31, 2016. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Daniel K. MAXWELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-0340

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 9, 2018

Daniel K. Maxwell, pro se, Appellant; Daren L. Shippy of the Office of Candice K. Brower, Criminal Conflict & Civil Regional Counsel, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

Upon consideration of Appellant's response to the Court's order of June 4, 2018, the Court has determined that the appeal is untimely. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Any request for belated appeal *721must be filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(c).

Roberts, Wetherell, and Osterhaus, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
UNAUDITED  FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS  FOR THE SIX MONTH PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 2000,
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIREY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         152,721
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   52,377
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,477,550
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,687,648
<PP&E>                                          59,496
<DEPRECIATION>                                  21,657
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,240,118
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,373,560
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        15,890
<OTHER-SE>                                     850,668
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,240,118
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               304,250
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (267)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (297,065)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (297,065)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (297,065)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0



</TABLE>
Archie SMITH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-1087

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[June 21, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          10,300
<SECURITIES>                                    45,900
<RECEIVABLES>                                  477,400
<ALLOWANCES>                                    43,700
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         849,700
<DEPRECIATION>                                 258,400
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,445,500
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                      5,271,800
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           500
<OTHER-SE>                                     893,800
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,445,500
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,721,200
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,341,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (14,800)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (5,800)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (9,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (9,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.20)


</TABLE>
REGULATORY EVALUATION

Directorate Identifier: 2007

- NM
- 1 6 5
- AD

Executive Order 12866: Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES ( ) explain NO (X) DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures: Is the AD significant? YES ( ) explain NO (X) Regulatory Flexibility Act: Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? YES ( ) explain NO (X) Intrastate Aviation in Alaska: This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. I s it appropriate t o include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES ( ) explain NO (X)
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

IN THE MATTER OF: CASE NO. 20-12114-RAM

LUIS DIAZ &

OLEYDIS SARDINAS CHAPTER 13

Debtors,

________________________________/

 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the Agreed Order to Employer to Deduct & Remit & 

for Related Matters, D.E# 33 was served on this 23rd day of March 2020 to all parties listed on 

the attached Mailing Matrix and all others set forth in the NEF.

CORONA LAW FIRM, P.A.

/s/ Ricardo Corona, Esq.

RICARDO CORONA, ESQ.

Florida Bar No.: 111333

3899 NW 7 Street, Suite 202-B

Miami, FL 33126

Tel: (305) 547-1234

Fax: (888) 554-5607

e-mail: bk@coronapa.com

Case 20-12114-RAM Doc 34 Filed 03/23/20 Page 1 of 2
Mailing Matrix

 Case No: 20-12114-RAM

Sent by Electronic Means Sent by Electronic Means

Office of US Trustee Nancy K. Neidich, Chapter 13 Trustee 

51 SW 1st Avenue, Ste 1204 P.O. Box 279806

Miami, FL 33130 Miramar, FL 33027

Sent via U.S. Mail

Luis Diaz & Oleydis Sardinas

999 West 66 Street

Hialeah, FL 33012

Sent via U.S. Certified Mail

Miami Dade College

Attn: Payroll Department

11011 SW 104th Street

Miami, FL 33176-3393

Case 20-12114-RAM Doc 34 Filed 03/23/20 Page 2 of 2