alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Certification of 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 Quarterly Report of SRKP 16, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Anthony C. Pintsopoulos, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:





(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.





/s/ Anthony C. PintsopoulosAnthony C. PintsopoulosPrincipal Financial OfficerNovember 4, 2011
EX-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 ChineseWorldNet.com, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 20-F for
the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Joe Kin Foon
Tai, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to
the best of my knowledge:





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 result of operations of the
      Company.




Dated:    April 29,
2010




/s/
Joe Kin Foon Tai


JOE KIN FOON TAI


Chief Executive Officer
Case 1:07-cv-05790-RJS Document 12 Filed 04/30/2008 Page 1 of 1
142 So. 918

#### Ex parte Clarence A. WEST et al.

6 Div. 178.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

May 30, 1932.

Ernest Matthews and Crampton Harris, both of Birmingham, for petitioner.

PER CURIAM.

Rule nisi denied.

ANDERSON, C. J., and GARDNER, BOÜDDIN,. and POSTER, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 10.1


 


AMENDMENT
TO


 


CHARTER
AGREEMENT


 


                THIS AMENDMENT TO
CHARTER AGREEMENT (the “Amendment”), dated as of this 16th day of December,
2005, by and between PROFLITE LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, having
its principal place of business at 233 Industrial Avenue, Teterboro, New
Jersey, 07608 (“ProFlite”) and MONSTER WORLDWIDE, INC., a Delaware corporation,
having its principal place of business at 622 Third Avenue, New York, New York,
10017 (“Customer”).


 


                WHEREAS, ProFlite
and Customer entered into a Charter Agreement dated as of April 29, 2005 (the “Agreement”);
and


 


                WHEREAS, ProFlite and Customer desire to amend the
Agreement.


 


NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing
premises and the mutual covenants and conditions contained herein and intending
to be legally bound, the parties agree as follows:


 


                1.             DEFINITIONS:  Capitalized terms used but not otherwise
defined herein shall have the respective meanings described to them in the
Agreement.


 


                2.             MODIFICATION TO
SECTION 3(A), CHARTER RATE: The first two sentences of Section 3(a)
are hereby deleted in their entirety and replaced with the following:


 


“Effective as of January 1, 2006, ProFlite shall make
the Aircraft available to Customer for a minimum of One Hundred Fifty (150)
charter hours of flight time per year during each twelve month period of the
Term of this Agreement.”


“Effective as of January 1, 2006, Customer shall pay a
charter rate of Eight Thousand United States Dollars (US$8,000.00) per charter
hour of Customer’s use of the Aircraft (the “Charter Rate”) computed in
accordance with this Section 3(a).”


 


3.             NO OTHER AMENDMENTS:  Except as
expressly modified by this Amendment, all terms and provisions of the Agreement
shall remain in full force and effect.


 


4.             CONSTRUCTION:  This
Amendment shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the
State of New York, without regard to the principles of conflict of laws
thereof.


 


                5.
            COUNTERPARTS:   The parties may
execute this Amendment in two or more counterparts, which shall, in the
aggregate, be signed by all the parties; each counterpart shall be deemed an
original instrument as against any party who signed it and such counterpart (s)
may be transmitted by facsimile.


The parties hereto have
caused this Amendment to be executed by their duly authorized representatives
as of the date first above written.


 


	
  MONSTER WORLDWIDE, INC.

  	
   

  	
  ProFlite LLC

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  By:

  	
   

  	
  /s/ Myron Olesnyckyj

  	
   

  	
  By:

  	
   

  	
  /s/ Ted Button

  
	
  Name:

  	
   

  	
  Myron Olesnyckyj

  	
   

  	
  Name:

  	
   

  	
  Ted Button

  
	
  Title:

  	
   

  	
  Senior Vice President

  	
   

  	
  Title:

  	
   

  	
  President
Case 1:07-cv-05289-AKH Document 19 Filed 02/06/2008 Page 1 of 3Case 1:07-cv-05289-AKH Document 19 Filed 02/06/2008 Page 2 of 3Case 1:07-cv-05289-AKH Document 19 Filed 02/06/2008 Page 3 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 8 Filed 09/07/2007 Page 1 of 1
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gregory Charles PARRISH, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12-16138

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

June 11, 2013.

Patricia D. Barksdale, Jay Carl Taylor, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Jacksonville, FL, Robert E. O’Neill, Patricia A. Willing, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Susan Good Yazgi, James H. Burke, Jr., Federal Public Defender’s Office, Jacksonville, FL, Rosemary Cakmis, Donna Lee Elm, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Orlando, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.

Gregory Charles Parrish, Coleman, FL, pro se.

Before TJÓFLAT, PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Susan Good Yazgi, counsel for Gregory Charles Parrish in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Parrish’s convictions and sentences are AFFIRMED.
**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 Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Vital Living, Inc. (the
      "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gregg A. Linn,
      Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, to my best knowledge and
      belief, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d));
                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/
      GREGG A.
      LINN


Gregg
      A.
      Linn


*Chief
      Financial Officer*




Date:
      March 30, 2007
Exhibit 10.1


 


DYNTEK, INC.


 


AMENDMENT NO 1 TO


2005 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN


 


Pursuant to
Article 9 of the 2005 Stock Option Plan of the Company (the “Plan”), and in
accordance with a proposal by the Board of Directors and as approved by the
Stockholders of the Company at the Annual Meeting on December 13, 2005, the
Plan is hereby amended as follows:


 


Article 3, Section
3.3 shall now read in its entirety:


 


“3.3        Limitation on Shares.  In no event shall any Participant be granted
Options or issued Restricted Stock in any one calendar year pursuant to which
the aggregate number of shares of Common Stock that may be acquired thereunder
exceeds Seven Million Five Hundred Thousand (7,500,000) shares, subject to
adjustment as to the number and kind of shares pursuant to Section 4.2 hereof.”


 


Article 4, Section
4.1 shall now read in its entirety:


 


“4.1        Shares Subject to the
Plan.


 


(a)           The number of shares of Common Stock
that may be issued under the Plan shall be equal to Thirty Million (30,000,000)
shares, subject to adjustment as to the number and kind of shares pursuant to
Section 4.2 hereof.  For purposes of this
limitation, in the event that (a) all or any portion of any Option granted
under the Plan can no longer under any circumstances be exercised, or (b) any
shares of Common Stock are reacquired by the Company pursuant to an Incentive
Option Agreement, Nonqualified Option Agreement or Stock Purchase Agreement,
the shares of Common Stock allocable to the unexercised portion of such Option
or the shares so reacquired shall again be available for grant or issuance
under the Plan.”


 


(b)           The maximum number of shares of
Common Stock that may be issued under the Plan as Incentive Options shall be
equal to Thirty Million (30,000,000) shares, subject to adjustment as to the number
and kind of shares pursuant to Section 4.2 hereof.”


 


IN WITNESS
WHEREOF, DynTek, Inc. has caused its duly authorized officer to execute this
amendment on its behalf this 16th day of December 2005.


 


 


	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Robert I. Webber

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Robert I. Webber

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  President and Chief Financial Officer
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-93,182-01

EX PARTE TYRONE DARNELL PRICE, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. C-371-W012016-1598910-A IN THE 371ST DISTRICT COURT

FROM TARRANT COUNTY

YEARY, J., filed a dissenting opinion in which KELLER, P.J. joined.

DISSENTING OPINION

Applicant’s attorney allowed him to plead guilty to two indictments on the same 

day for the offense of assault on a family member—allegedly committed in the same way,

on the same date, against the same victim. Today the Court grants him relief on the only 

ground alleged in his post-conviction application for writ of habeas corpus: a violation of 

his constitutional protection against being twice convicted of the same offense embodied 

in the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. But the Court should not grant 

Applicant summary relief on this basis, for the reasons I have expressed in Ex parte 

Estrada, 487 S.W.3d 210, 212–15 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (Yeary, J., dissenting), and, 
PRICE — 2

more recently, in Ex parte Timmons, 630 S.W.3d 98, 98-99 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021) (Yeary, 

J., dissenting). 

Applicant should have sought relief—if he is entitled to any—in the guise of a claim 

of ineffective assistance of counsel, or even perhaps in the guise of a claim of prosecutorial 

misconduct. If he had brought either of those claims, the Court would then have inquired 

whether there might have been some understandable excuse for what otherwise appears to 

be a plain violation of the double jeopardy bar. But he has not brought either of those 

claims, even as an alternative claim, and so we have no basis to grant relief on for either of 

those reasons. 

The Court should file and set this writ application to finally articulate whether a 

double jeopardy claim made under circumstances such as those presented by these cases is 

even cognizable in post-conviction habeas corpus proceeding, and if so, why. Id. At the 

very minimum, the Court should not grant relief on this bare double jeopardy claim without 

at least establishing a requirement, for this and similar cases, that a defendant pursuing 

such a claim should have to show that an apparent double jeopardy claim (such as this one 

in this case) was not just a part of some hard-to-understand (without more information) but 

nevertheless permissible plan or strategy.

Because the Court instead grants summary relief, I respectfully dissent.

FILED: December 8, 2021

PUBLISH
**EXHIBIT32**

 

CERTIFICATIONPursuant to

18U.S.C. Section 1350

 

 

KeithA. Guevara, as Chief Executive Officer of NBO Systems, Inc. (the"Company"), and Christopher Foley, as Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that

 

-  the    Company's Annual Report of Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31,    2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date    hereof (the "Report") fully complies with the applicable    requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange    Act of 1934; and the    information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material    respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
Dated:      March 30, 2004   
 /s/      Keith A. Guevara                                
      
Keith      A. Guevara
      
Chief      Executive Officer
      
Of
      
NBO      Systems, Inc.
 
Dated:      March 30, 2004   
 /s/      Christopher Foley                                 
      
Christopher      Foley
      
Chief      Financial Officer
      
Of
      
NBO      Systems, Inc.
EXHIBIT 10.20





EXTENSION
AGREEMENT TO EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


between David R. Beathard (Executive) and


Pogo Producing Company, a Delaware corporation (Company),


dated effective February 1, 2002





WHEREAS, Executive and Company are parties to an Executive Employment Agreement bearing an original Effective Date of
February 1, 1999; and





WHEREAS, February 1, 2002, (even date herewith) is hereby deemed to be the Renewal
Date in that Employment Agreement; and





WHEREAS, Executive and Company each wish to extend said Executive
Employment Agreement for an additional one-year period so as to terminate (unless further extended) two years thereafter, (to-wit January 31, 2004); and





WHEREAS, Company desires to retain the services of Executive for the benefit of Company and its shareholders, and desires to induce Executive to remain in its employ for that extended time period; and





WHEREAS, Executive has agreed to continue to serve as an employee of Company for the period specified herein from and
after the date of this Extension Agreement; and





WHEREAS, Company and Executive desire to enter into this Extension
Agreement in order to formally secure for Company the benefit of the experience and abilities of Executive, and to set forth the agreements and understandings of Company and Executive; and





WHEREAS, Company has advised Executive that execution and performance of this Extension Agreement by Company has been duly authorized and approved by all requisite corporate
action on the part of the Company.




---




NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the mutual promises and agreements
herein contained, and in consideration of the sum of $10 paid by Company to Executive, receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged by Executive, Executive and Company do hereby agree as follows:





1.    The Executive Employment Agreement between Executive and Company bearing an Effective Date of February 1, 1999 and a Renewal Date which
is deemed herein to be February 1, 2002, is hereby extended for an additional one-year period commencing February 1, 2003 and ending January 31, 2004, unless such employment period is hereafter further extended for an additional period by both
Executive and Company.





2.    All provisions of the Executive Employment Agreement between Executive and
Company dated as of February 1, 1999, and as it is herein amended, are continued in full force and effect without change as if the Employment Agreement had been initially effective as of February 1, 2002.





POGO PRODUCING COMPANYBy:

/s/    JOHN O. MCCOY,
JR.John O. McCoy, Jr. Senior Vice President and
Chief Administrative Officer





ATTEST:/s/    JOEANN KINGDONAssistant Corporate Secretary





EMPLOYEE:/s/    DAVID R. BEATHARDDavid R. Beathard Vice
PresidentEngineering
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Herbert Moreno Garcia, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kooper, J.), rendered May 29, 1985, convicting him of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Although some of the prosecutor’s remarks made during his summation were improper, those that were objected to at the trial were stricken by the court and curative instructions were given, thereby alleviating any possible prejudice. Moreover, the cumulative effect of the comments was not so prejudicial *417as to cause the trial to be unfair *(see, People v Roopchand,*107 AD2d 35, *affd*65 NY2d 837). We have examined the contentions raised by the defendant in his *pro se*brief and have found them to be without merit. Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Weinstein and Rubin, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit31.1**

CERTIFICATION OFPRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, George E.Crapple, Co-Chief Executive Officer of Millburn Ridgefield Corporation, theManaging Owner of Global Macro Trust (the “Trust”), do hereby certify that:

1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form10-K of the Trust;

2.  Based on my knowledge, this annual reportdoes not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this annual report;

3.  Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this annual report,fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the Trust as of, and for, the periods presented inthis annual report;

4. The Trust’sother certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Trust and have:

  (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the Trust, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

  (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the Trust’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this annual report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures,as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;

  (c) disclosed in this report any change inthe Trust’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theTrust’s fourth fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the Trust’s internal control over financial reporting.

5.  The Trust’s other certifying officers and Ihave disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the Trust’s auditors and the audit committee of theTrust’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

  (a) all significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Trust’s abilityto record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

  (b) any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Trust’sinternal control over financial reporting.

By:  /s/ George E. Crapple

__________________________________

George E. Crapple

Co-Chief ExecutiveOfficer

March 30, 2007

----
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 93 (Monday, May 14, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24355-24356]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-12023]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EC01-94-000]


American Electric Power Service Corp.; Notice of Filing

May 8, 2001.
    Take notice that on April 27, 2001, American Electric Power Service 
Corporation, on behalf of West Texas Utilities Company, Public Service 
Company of Oklahoma and Southwestern Electric Power Company, filed with 
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission an application pursuant to 
section 203 of the Federal Power Act requesting authorization to 
transfer operational control of certain jurisdictional transmission 
facilities to

[[Page 24356]]

the Southwest Power Pool Regional Transmission Organization as proposed 
and described in the filing made by the Southwest Power Pool on October 
13, 2000 in Docket No. RT01-34-000.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's rules of practice 
and procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions and 
protests should be filed on or before May 18, 2001. Protests will be 
considered by the Commission to determine the appropriate action to be 
taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to 
intervene. Copies of this filings are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on 
the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-
2222 for assistance). Comments, protests and interventions may be filed 
electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on Commission's web site at 
http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-12023 Filed 5-11-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Exhibit 32 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 GeNOsys, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending November 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Annual Report), We, John W. R. Miller, our Chief Executive Officer and director and Keith L. Merrell, our Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, 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 Annual 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 our Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, our financial condition and result of operations.  Dated: 3/12/2009                               /s/John W. R. Miller John W. R. Miller Chief Executive Officer and Director   Dated: 3/12/2009                             /s/Keith L. Merrell Keith L. Merrell Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
Case 1:07-cv-01667-AKH Document 5 Filed 08/07/2007 Page 1 of 4Case 1:07-cv-01667-AKH Document 5 Filed 08/07/2007 Page 2 of 4Case 1:07-cv-01667-AKH Document 5 Filed 08/07/2007 Page 3 of 4Case 1:07-cv-01667-AKH Document 5 Filed 08/07/2007 Page 4 of 4
Case 1:02-cv-02255-SHS Document 404 Filed 02/11/2008 Page 1 of 1
Case 1:07-cv-04462-AKH Document 30-2 Filed 10/02/2007 Page 1 of 1