alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit No. 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 Annual Report of CEO Channel.com, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB for the year ended  December  31, 2002 as filed with the  Securities
and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Glenn A. Little,
Chief  Executive and Financial  Officer of the Company,  certify  pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  Section 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.



Date:  April 1, 2005


By:   /s/ Larry Creeger
    -------------------------
    Larry Creeger
    Chief Executive and
    Chief Financial Officer







--------------------------------------
This  certification  accompanies  the  Report  pursuant  to  Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and  shall not be deemed  filed by the  Company  for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

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
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.d  furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Geology General

Filters

              - products_publications(7)
              - multimedia_audio(1)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(1)
              - (-)multimedia_video(1)
              - multimedia_video-149194(1)

## By Location

              - alabama(1)
              - alaska(12)
              - arizona(12)
              - arkansas(1)
              - california(49)
              - colorado(3)
              - commonwealth of the northern mariana islands(1)
              - connecticut(1)
              - delaware(3)
              - district of columbia(3)
              - florida(3)
              - georgia(1)
              - hawaii(43)
              - idaho(3)
              - indiana(1)
              - iowa(1)
              - kentucky(1)
              - louisiana(2)
              - maine(3)
              - maryland(5)
              - massachusetts(3)
              - (-)michigan(1)
              - minnesota(2)
              - mississippi(1)
              - missouri(1)
              - montana(4)
              - nevada(5)
              - new hampshire(1)
              - new jersey(3)
              - new mexico(2)
              - new york(1)
              - north carolina(3)
              - north dakota(3)
              - oregon(6)
              - pennsylvania(1)
              - puerto rico(2)
              - rhode island(1)
              - south carolina(1)
              - south dakota(7)
              - tennessee(1)
              - texas(5)
              - u.s. virgin islands(1)
              - utah(3)
              - virginia(5)
              - washington(16)
              - west virginia(2)
              - wisconsin(8)
              - wyoming(6)

## By Year

Presentations and Events        April 16, 2019        Variable Warming Upper Midwest Lakes and Implications for Sport Fish
# C_2020414EN.01001901.xml

| 30.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 414/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 414/19

---

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Obvodní soud pro Prahu 8 — Czech Republic) — mBank S.A. v PA

(Case C-98/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Jurisdiction in civil matters - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State in which the consumer is domiciled - Article 18(2) - Proceedings brought against the consumer by the seller or supplier - Concept of ‘consumer’s domicile’ - Relevant time for determining the consumer’s domicile - Transfer of the consumer’s domicile after the conclusion of the contract and before the action is brought)

(2020/C 414/24)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Obvodní soud pro Prahu 8

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: mBank S.A.

Defendant: PA

Operative part of the order

The concept of ‘consumer’s domicile’ referred to in Article 18(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as designating the consumer’s domicile at the date on which the court action is brought.

---

(1)  OJ C 137, 27.4.2020.

---
##### 



Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
      (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls
and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us
by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is
being prepared;(b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation
of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles;(c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures
and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; and(d)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the
registered fourth quarter in the case of an Annual Report) that has materially affected,
or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over
financial reporting; and
  (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;
and(b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
 Date: February 28, 2007
    
    By:
    
    /s/ Martin J. EmersonMartin J. EmersonTitle: President and Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit  10.2

                                PROMISSORY NOTE
                                ---------------


$40,000                                                   Dated  June  24,  2004


     FOR  VALUE  RECEIVED,  the  undersigned  promises  to  pay  to the order of
GREENTREE  FINANCIAL  GROUP,  INC.,  its successors or assigns, the sum of FORTY
THOUSAND  AND  NO/00  ($40,000.00)  DOLLARS  (representing a principal amount of
$38,835 plus interest of $1,165, or approximately 6% interest per annum) payable
in  six  months  from  today  as  follows:

THE  TOTAL OF FORTY THOUSAND AND NO/00 ($40,000) DOLLARS, PLUS ACCRUED INTEREST,
WILL  BE PAID, IN CASH ON DECEMBER 24, 2004. THIS PAYMENT HEREUNDER SHALL BE DUE
AND PAYABLE AT THE OFFICES OF GREENTREE FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., LOCATED AT 555 S.
POWERLINE  ROAD,  POMPANO  BEACH,  FLORIDA  33069.

THIS  PROMISSORY  NOTE  IS NON ASSUMABLE. IT SHALL BECOME DUE AND PAYABLE UPON A
CHANGE  IN CONTROL (AS DEFINED BY SEC RULES AND REBULATIONS) OF THE MAKER. THERE
SHALL  BE  NO  PRE-PAYMENT  PENALTY  WITH  RESPECT  TO  THIS  PROMISSORY  NOTE.

     Each maker, endorser, and guarantor waives demand, notice of nonpayment and
demand.  If any payment due is not made and remains unpaid for TEN (10) DAYS, it
is  in default hereof. Any such payment in default shall bear interest at 6% per
annum.  Should  any  payment  not  be  made when due, there shall also be a late
charge  equal  to  5%  of the amount of the installment of principal or interest
which  is paid after the due date. In the event of default hereunder, the entire
unpaid balance hereof shall, at the option of the holder, become due and payable
upon  demand. All costs and fees (including reasonable fees and disbursements of
legal  counsel)  incurred  by  the holder as the result of any default by anyone
liable  hereunder  or as the result of any collection effort by the holder shall
also  be due and owing to the holder. Failure to exercise any right shall not be
deemed  a  waiver  of  the right to exercise the same at any subsequent date, or
event.

     The  Maker  acknowledges  receipt  of  a  conformed  duplicate copy of this
promissory  note and acknowledges having had its duly appointed officer read the
same  before  affixing  his  signature  below.



                                      -2-


     This  promissory note is to be construed according to the laws of the State
of  Florida,  without  regard  to  any  choice  of  law  principles.

IN  WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the Maker has caused this note to be executed by its duly
authorized  officer  on  this  24th  day  of  June,  2004.


CAPITAL  RESOURCE  FUNDING,  INC.


By:  /s/  David  Koran
     -----------------
     David  Koran
     President
Gregory GREEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-1755

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 5, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
* 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. 98-10992

Summary Calendar

 

ANTHONY RAY ARCHER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, 

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, 

INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION ET AL.,

Defendants-Appellees.

---------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:97-CV-159-X

---------------------

May 7, 1999

Before EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Anthony Ray Archer, Texas prisoner #306447, seeks leave to

proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), following the district court’s

certification that his appeal from the dismissal of his civilrights complaint was taken in bad faith. Archer asserts that the

district court erred by holding his claims barred by Edwards v.

Balisok, 520 U.S. 641 (1997); that he did not receive due process

in three prison disciplinary proceedings; that three guards filed 
No. 98-10992

- 2 -

false disciplinary reports against him; and that two of the three

guards retaliated against him.

Archer has failed to brief his assertion that the district

court erred by holding his claims barred by Edwards. See

Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744,

748 (5th Cir. 1987). Moreover, the punishments Archer received

at his disciplinary hearings, a reduction in status and cell and

commissary restrictions, do not implicate protected liberty

interests. Archer has not shown a due process violation

concerning his disciplinary hearings. Madison v. Parker, 104

F.3d 765, 768 (5th Cir. 1997); Luken v. Scott, 71 F.3d 192, 193

(5th Cir. 1995). Archer has failed to brief his retaliation

assertions, Brinkmann, 813 F.2d at 748, and he does not allege a

favorable termination of his disciplinary proceedings, as is

required for any claim based on the filing of false disciplinary

reports independent of any retaliation claim. Woods v. Smith, 60

F.3d 1161, 1165 n.16 (5th Cir. 1995).

Archer’s appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous. 

Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). 

Accordingly, Archer’s IFP motion is DENIED and the appeal is

DISMISSED. 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. The dismissal of this appeal as

frivolous counts as a strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

We caution Archer that once he accumulates three strikes, he may

not proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is

in prison unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical

injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

APPEAL DISMISSED; WARNING ISSUED.
Lori GRIFFIN v. STATE of Mississippi

2014-CT-01335-COA

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Filed: September 28, 2018 Closed: January 10, 2019

Certiorari - Denied
<PAGE>
                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.2.7
                             As of February 8, 2006

Globis Overseas Fund, Ltd.
60 Broad Street
New York, NY  10004
Attn: Paul Packer

Gentlemen:

The undersigned hereby agrees to transfer to you 4,000 shares ("Shares") of
common stock, par value $.001 per share, of Asia Automotive Acquisition
Corporation ("Company"), a blank check company organized for the purpose of
effecting a merger, capital stock exchange, asset acquisition or other similar
business combination with an automotive operating business that has its primary
operating facilities located in Asia, in exchange for $100.

By agreeing to the foregoing transfer, you understand that the Shares have not
been registered under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities
Act"); that you are acquiring the Shares for your account for investment
purposes only; that you have no present intention of selling or otherwise
disposing of the Shares in violation of the Securities Act; that you are an
"accredited investor" as defined by Rule 501 of Regulation D promulgated under
the Securities Act; and that, based solely on a review of the Registration
Statement on Form S-1, as amended to date, filed with the SEC, you are familiar
with the proposed business, management, financial condition, and affairs of the
Company.

Very truly yours,



/s/ William Herren
William Herren



Agreed to:
Globis Overseas Fund, Ltd.



By: /s/ Paul Packer
    ------------------
    Name: Paul Packer
    Title: by Globis Capital Management L.P.,
           by Globis Capital LLC, by
           Paul Packer, Managing Member
Theresa BRENNAN-BROOKS, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. INDIAN RIVER FIRE RESCUE/JOHNS EASTERN COMPANY, INC., Appellees/Cross-Appellants.

No. 1D18-1301

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

January 25, 2019

Kimberly A. Hill of Kimberly A. Hill, P.L., Fort Lauderdale, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee.

William H. Rogner of Hurley, Rogner, Miller, Cox & Waranch, P.A., Winter Park, for Appellees/Cross-Appellants.

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED .

Rowe, Ray, and Osterhaus, JJ., concur.
lmfa-ex105_17.htm



EXHIBIT 10.5

AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT OF AARON GORDON

 

This (“Amendment”) is dated August 30, 2016, (“Effective Date”) to the Employment Agreement dated as of January 4, 2016, by and between LM Funding America, Inc., Delaware incorporated corporation (the “Company”), and Aaron Gordon (“Executive”).

WHEREAS: Executive has agreed to reduce his or her cash Salary compensation from the original agreed upon amount pro-rata, commencing on the effective date of this Amendment and continuing thereafter for the duration of the term of the original Employment Agreement at the request of the Board of Directors. This reduction is in connection with cost saving measures and a general reduction of salaries to the Company’s senior management. 

NOW THEREFORE: Section 3(a) of the Employment Agreement, titled, “Compensation” is deleted in its entirety and hereby substituted with the following, to read:

(a)The Company agrees to pay to Executive a salary in cash (the “Salary”), as compensation for the services to be performed by Executive, at the rate of $125,000 $112,500 per calendar year, paid in accordance with the Company’s customary payroll procedures and subject to applicable withholding. During the Term, the Board shall have the right to increase, but not decrease, the Salary, except the Board may decrease the Salary in connection with a base salary decrease that is generally applicable to all members of the Company’s senior management. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, Executive will be eligible for additional annual salary merit increases during the Term beginning in 2017 based on the evaluation of Executive’s performance as determined by the Board in its sole discretion. Executive’s salary as in effect from time to time shall constitute the “Salary” for purposes of this Agreement.  

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

LM FUNDING AMERICA, INC.

By: /s/ Bruce M. Rodgers

      Bruce M. Rodgers, Chief Executive Officer

 

EXECUTIVE

/s/ Aaron Gordon

Aaron Gordon
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Niamul Hussain, Appellant,<br><br>against<br><br>Anice G. Varghese, Respondent.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Larry Love, J.), entered September 22, 2014. The order denied plaintiff's motion to vacate an order dismissing the action and to restore the matter to the trial calendar.</p><p>ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.</p><p>Plaintiff commenced this action to recover the principal sum of $20,000, based on defendant's alleged failure to return plaintiff's $10,000 down payment which he had made prior to the closing of his purchase of defendant's home, and on defendant's failure to pay plaintiff $10,000 for repairs allegedly required to be made to the house following the closing. On the scheduled trial date, plaintiff failed to appear and, as a result, the action was dismissed. Thereafter, plaintiff moved to vacate the order dismissing the action and to restore the action to the calendar. The Civil Court denied the motion, with prejudice, and plaintiff appeals.</p><p>Pursuant to 22 NYCRR 208.14 (b) (2), a court may dismiss an action when a plaintiff is unable to proceed to trial at the call of the calendar (<i>see Chen v Hossain</i>, 41 Misc 3d 142[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 52022[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th &amp; 13th Jud Dists 2013]; <a href="../2005/2005_05187.htm" target="_blank"><i>see also Fink v Antell</i>, 19 AD3d 215</a> [2005]). In order to be relieved of that default, a plaintiff must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious cause of action (<i>see</i> CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; <i>Kandel v Hoffman</i>, 309 AD2d 904 [2003]; <i>Campenni v Ridgecroft Estates Owners</i>, 61 AD2d 496 [1999]). Here, plaintiff failed to establish either. Moreover, the record demonstrates that plaintiff's failure to appear for trial was not an isolated incident, but part of a pattern of "repeated neglect" (<i>Roussodimou v Zafiriadis</i>, 238 AD2d 568, 569 [1997]). Where the record demonstrates a pattern of default or neglect, the default should be considered intentional and, therefore, not excusable (<i>see Incorporated Vil. of Hempstead v Jablonsky</i>, 283 AD2d 553 [2001]). Consequently, the Civil Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion.</p><p>Accordingly, the order is affirmed.</p><p>Pesce, P.J., Weston and Aliotta, JJ., concur.</p><br>Decision Date: April 08, 2016<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
INTERVIDEO, INC.



Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Steve Ro, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge, the Annual Report of InterVideo, Inc. on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of InterVideo, Inc.



Date: March 31, 2006



|                                              
|----------------------------------------------
|/s/ Steve Ro                                  
|Steve Ro Chief Executive Officer and President
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Geology General

Filters

              - science_science(4)
              - products_data(2)
              - (-)products_maps(11)
              - products_publications(45)
              - multimedia_audio(2)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(1)
              - multimedia_audio-141767(1)
              - multimedia_image(3)
              - multimedia_image-141774(1)
              - multimedia_image-141775(2)
              - multimedia_video(49)
              - multimedia_video-149194(43)
              - multimedia_video-149195(3)
              - multimedia_video-149197(3)
              - connect_staff_profiles(1)

## By Location

              - alaska(15)
              - arizona(1)
              - arkansas(1)
              - (-)california(11)
              - colorado(10)
              - connecticut(1)
              - idaho(1)
              - kansas(1)
              - kentucky(1)
              - maine(2)
              - massachusetts(1)
              - missouri(2)
              - montana(3)
              - nevada(7)
              - new mexico(6)
              - new york(1)
              - north dakota(1)
              - oklahoma(1)
              - pennsylvania(3)
              - rhode island(1)
              - south dakota(3)
              - texas(1)
              - utah(14)
              - virginia(1)
              - wyoming(1)

## By Year

map        January 1, 1981        Generalized bedrock geologic map of the John Muir Wilderness, Fresno, Inyo, and Mono counties, California

map        July 17, 2010        Reconnaissance geologic map of the Hyampom 15' quadrangle, Trinity County, California

map        April 8, 2010        Reconnaissance geologic map of the Hayfork 15' quadrangle, Trinity County, California

map        July 1, 2000        Geologic map and map database of the Palo Alto 30' x 60' quadrangle, California

map        January 1, 2002        Geologic map and map database of northeastern San Francisco Bay region, California: Most of Solano County and parts of Napa, Marin, Contra Costa, San Joaquin, Sacramento, Yolo, and Sonoma Counties

map        January 1, 1977        Map showing earthquake intensity zonation and distribution of Quaternary deposits San Mateo, Santa Cruz, and Monterey counties, California

map        January 1, 1972        Landslide susceptibility in San Mateo County, California

map        January 1, 1976        Preliminary photointerpretation map of landslide and other surficial deposits of the Mount Vaca, Vacaville, and parts of Courtland, Davis, Lake Berryessa, and Woodland 15-minute quadrangles, Napa and Solano counties, California

map        January 1, 1987        Structure contour map of the top of the Oligocene to Middle Miocene Temblor Formation in the Kettleman Hills and Lost Hills areas, Fresno, Kings, and Kern counties, California

map        January 1, 1975        Distribution and cost of landslides that have damaged manmade structures during the rainy season of 1972-1973 in the San Francisco Bay region, California

map        October 24, 2009        Geologic map of the Weaverville 15' quadrangle, Trinity County, California