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





CERTIFICATION
OF FORM 10-Q REPORT OF





KL
ENERGY CORPORATION





FOR
THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2009








The
undersigned hereby certifies, for the purposes of Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of
Title 18 of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his capacity as an officer of KL Energy
Corporation (“KL”), that to his knowledge:





1.
            This
      Form 10-Q 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 such 10-Q Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      KL.





This
written statement is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
as an exhibit to the 10-Q Report. A signed original of this statement has been
provided to KL and will be retained by KL and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





This
Certification is executed as of November 16, 2009.








/s/ STEVEN
CORCORAN


Steven
Corcoran


President
and Chief Executive Officer
Case 1:07-cv-05797-SHS Document 12 Filed 10/12/2007 Page 1 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-05797-SHS Document 12 Filed 10/12/2007 Page 2 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-05797-SHS Document 12 Filed 10/12/2007 Page 3 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-05797-SHS Document 12 Filed 10/12/2007 Page 4 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-05797-SHS Document 12 Filed 10/12/2007 Page 5 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-05797-SHS Document 12 Filed 10/12/2007 Page 6 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-05797-SHS Document 12 Filed 10/12/2007 Page 7 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-05797-SHS Document 12 Filed 10/12/2007 Page 8 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-05797-SHS Document 12 Filed 10/12/2007 Page 9 of 9
November 22, 2006

Via E-Mail

Office of the Acting Secretary
Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Three Lafayette Centre

1155 21st Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20581

Re: Amended Rule Certification. NYMEX Submission 06.135: Notification
of Amendments to NYMEX Rules 9.26, 9.27, and 9.34 for Five New
Energy Futures Contracts.

Dear Ms. Eileen A. Donovan:

The New York Mercantile Exchange ("NYMEX" or the "Exchange") is notifying the
Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC” or “Commission”) of amendments to
NYMEX Rules 9.26, All Month/Any One Month Position Accountability; 9.27, Expiration and
Current Delivery Month Position Limits or Position Accountability; and 9.34, Reporting Levels.

Effective on trade date Monday, November 27, 2006, these amendments include the
addition of position limits, accountability levels, and reporting levels for five new Energy
Futures Contracts. This submission has been amended to correctly reflect that five new energy
futures contracts are being launched on November 27, 2006. Pursuant to Section 5c(c) of the
Commodity Exchange Act (“Act”) and CFTC Rule 40.6, the Exchange hereby certifies that the
attached rule amendments comply with the Act, including regulations under the Act.

Should you have any questions concerning the above, please contact Anthony V.
Densieski, Senior Director, Market Surveillance, at (212) 299-2881, or Bonnie H. Yurga,
Director, Market Surveillance, at (212) 299-2879.

Very truly yours,

Thomas F. LaSala
Chief Regulatory Officer

ce: Brian Regan
Nancy Minett


Contract

Name

Commodity

Al/Any One
Month

Expiration

Chapter

Code

Account:
ability

Month

Expiration
‘Account.
ability Level

Reporting

Level

vel

Limit

Penultimate

Into (1)

A

res
Into (2)

Rule 9.26

Rule 9.27

Contracts

Contracts

Rule 9.34

it A

Rule
2.274

Petroleum

USA

New York
Harbor

New York
Harbor
Gasoline
Blendstock
(RBOB)
Calendar
Spread
Option

ZA, ZB,
ZC, ZM

7,000

1,000

RB

New York
Harbor
Gasoline
Blendstock
“Look-Alike"
Option

RF

7,000

150

RT

New York
Harbor
Gasoline
Blendstock
(RBOB)
Average
Price Option

7,000

150

RT

New York
Harbor
Conv.
Gasoline vs.
NYMEX
RBOB
Gasoline
Swap
Contract

RZ

7,000/7,000.

1,000/1,000

RT

New York
Harbor
Gasoline
Blendstock
(RBOB)-
Crude Oil
Spread
Option

RX

20,000/7,000

3,000/ 1,000

CL

RB
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Roland E. Bennett, Appellant.

Weiss, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County (Turner, Jr., J.), rendered November 14, 1988, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree.

On September 6, 1988, this 27-year-old defendant was indicted on four counts, namely, criminal possession of stolen property in the third and fourth degrees, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and grand larceny in the fourth degree. Pursuant to a negotiated plea bargain, defendant pleaded guilty to criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree (possession of a 1988 Dodge truck which he had stolen in Florida) in full satisfaction of the indictment. He was sentenced to *2Vi*to 5 years in prison as a second felony offender. Although the plea included a waiver of his right to appeal, defendant contends on this appeal that the sentence is unduly harsh and excessive.

We are once again confronted with an appeal by a defendant, who, despite having made a voluntary, knowing and intelligent waiver of his right to appeal with the advice of competent counsel, contends that his sentence is harsh and excessive and seeks reduction in the interest of justice. The prosecution urges that we uphold the waiver and dismiss this appeal.

There have been differences in the findings of the four Appellate Divisions with respect to the validity of waivers of the right to appeal *(see, e.g., People v Bourne,*139 AD2d 210; *People v Ventura,*139 AD2d 196 [1st Dept]; *People v Smith,*142 AD2d 195 [2d Dept]; *People v Maye,*143 AD2d 483 [3d *887Dept]; *People v Durant,*101 AD2d 1008 [4th Dept]). It is now clear that the right to appeal a criminal conviction may be waived as a condition of a sentence or plea bargain *(People v Seaberg,*74 NY2d 1, 5). While a defendant always retains the right to challenge the legality of the sentence or the voluntariness of the plea, there is no public policy precluding defendants from waiving the right to appeal as a condition of the plea and sentence bargain. If a record shows that the waiver is voluntary, knowing and intelligent and the trial court has found the bargain reasonable and appropriate before accepting it, the waiver is valid *(People v Seaberg, supra).*The record in this case confirms that all of the criteria have been satisfied and, accordingly, the waiver should be enforced and the appeal dismissed.

Appeal dismissed. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Weiss, Levine and Harvey, JJ., concur.
INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT

To the Stockholders and Board of Directors
PeopleNet International Corporation:

We have audited the accompanying balance sheet of PeopleNet International Corporation, a Delaware Corporation (the "Company") as of December 31, 2002 and the related statements of operations, stockholders' deficit and cash flows for the year then ended. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's management.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audit.



We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement.  An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.



In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of PeopleNet International Corporation as of December 31, 2002 and the results of its operations and its cash flows for the year then ended, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.



The Company's financial statements are prepared using the generally accepted accounting principles applicable to a going concern, which contemplates the realization of assets and liquidation of liabilities in the normal course of business. The Company has accumulated deficit of $17,866,742 and the Company's total liabilities exceeded the total assets by $153,647 as of December 31, 2002. These factors as discussed in Note 14 to the financial statements, raises substantial doubt about the Company's ability to continue as a going concern. Management's plans in regard to these matters are also described in Note 14. The financial statements do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of this uncertainty.





KABANI & COMPANY, INC.CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

/s/ Kabani & Company, Inc.

Fountain Valley, CaliforniaMarch 7, 2003
Case 1:07-cv-04904-AKH Document 2 Filed 07/31/2008 Page 1 of 10
Case 1:07-cv-04904-AKH Document 2 Filed 07/31/2008 Page 2 of 10
Case 1:07-cv-04904-AKH Document 2 Filed 07/31/2008 Page 3 of 10
Case 1:07-cv-04904-AKH Document 2 Filed 07/31/2008 Page 4 of 10
Case 1:07-cv-04904-AKH Document 2 Filed 07/31/2008 Page 5 of 10
Case 1:07-cv-04904-AKH Document 2 Filed 07/31/2008 Page 6 of 10
Case 1:07-cv-04904-AKH Document 2 Filed 07/31/2008 Page 7 of 10
Case 1:07-cv-04904-AKH Document 2 Filed 07/31/2008 Page 8 of 10
Case 1:07-cv-04904-AKH Document 2 Filed 07/31/2008 Page 9 of 10
Case 1:07-cv-04904-AKH Document 2 Filed 07/31/2008 Page 10 of 10
Exhibit  32.1
 CEO 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 Guaranty Federal Bancshares, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30,  2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Don M. Gibson, 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:
 
 The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 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.
 
 /s/ Don M. Gibson
 Don M. Gibson  Chief Executive Officer
 (Principal Executive Officer)
 
 November 6, 2003
 
 * 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.
Case 1:07-cv-05807-TPG Document 9-29 Filed 01/30/2008 Page 1 of 15
Case 1:07-cv-05807-TPG Document 9-29 Filed 01/30/2008 Page 2 of 15
Case 1:07-cv-05807-TPG Document 9-29 Filed 01/30/2008 Page 3 of 15
Case 1:07-cv-05807-TPG Document 9-29 Filed 01/30/2008 Page 4 of 15
Case 1:07-cv-05807-TPG Document 9-29 Filed 01/30/2008 Page 5 of 15
Case 1:07-cv-05807-TPG Document 9-29 Filed 01/30/2008 Page 6 of 15
Case 1:07-cv-05807-TPG Document 9-29 Filed 01/30/2008 Page 7 of 15
Case 1:07-cv-05807-TPG Document 9-29 Filed 01/30/2008 Page 8 of 15
Case 1:07-cv-05807-TPG Document 9-29 Filed 01/30/2008 Page 9 of 15
Case 1:07-cv-05807-TPG Document 9-29 Filed 01/30/2008 Page 10 of 15
Case 1:07-cv-05807-TPG Document 9-29 Filed 01/30/2008 Page 11 of 15
Case 1:07-cv-05807-TPG Document 9-29 Filed 01/30/2008 Page 12 of 15
Case 1:07-cv-05807-TPG Document 9-29 Filed 01/30/2008 Page 13 of 15
Case 1:07-cv-05807-TPG Document 9-29 Filed 01/30/2008 Page 14 of 15
Case 1:07-cv-05807-TPG Document 9-29 Filed 01/30/2008 Page 15 of 15
## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth

___________________________ No. 02

- 21

- 00006

- CV

___________________________

On Appeal from the 231st District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 231

- 517937

- 12

Before Wallach , J

. ; Sudderth, C.J. ; and Walke r, J. Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion 

### I N THE 

### I NTEREST OF 

### G.C., A 

### C HILD2 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT On June 3, 2021, we notified appellant that h er brief had not been filed as the appellate rules require. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.6(a). We stated that we could dismiss the appeal for want o f prosecution unless , within ten days, appellant filed with the

court a n appellant ’ s brief and a n accompanying motion reasonably explaining the brief’s untimely filing and why an extension was needed. See Tex. R. App. P. 10.5(b), 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b). We ha ve received no response. Because appellant has failed to file a brief even after we afforded an opportunity to explain the initial failure, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b), 43.2(f). Appellant must pay all costs of this appeal.
Per Curiam
Delivered : June 24, 2021
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Donna Charles, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dufficy, J.), rendered July 9, 1987, convicting her of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defense counsel’s failure to move to reopen the suppression hearing, following trial testimony which indicated that the defendant may have been ordered by police to open a bag which was found to contain cocaine, did not, under the circumstances of this case, demonstrate that the defendant received the ineffective assistance of counsel *(see, People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137; *People v McFadden,*118 AD2d 805). In any event, we are not persuaded that even if the motion to reopen the *Mapp*hearing had been granted, suppression of the evidence would ultimately have been granted *(see, People v Wade,*137 AD2d 638).

The sentencing statute was not unconstitutionally applied to this defendant *(see, People v Broadie,*37 NY2d 100, *cert denied*423 US 950). Furthermore, the sentence imposed was not excessive *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80). Kunzeman, J. P., Hooper, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
Case 1:07-cv-01699-AKH Document 7 Filed 09/14/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-01699-AKH Document 7 Filed 09/14/2007 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 12.1

Penn Virginia Resource Partners, L.P.

Statement of Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed
Charges Calculation

(in thousands, except ratios)



|                                   |  |                          |        |      |   |        |  |      |        |      |   |        |  |   |       
|---------------------------------- |  | ------------------------ | ------ | ---- | - | ------ |  | ---- | ------ | ---- | - | ------ |  | - | ------
|                                   |  | Years Ended December 31,
|                                   |  | 2003                     |        | 2004 |   | 2005   |  | 2006 |        | 2007
|Earnings                           |  |                          |        |      |   |        |  |      |        |      |   |        |  |   |       
|Pre-tax income *                   |  | $                        | 22,690 |      | $ | 34,876 |  | $    | 52,430 |      | $ | 74,910 |  | $ | 55,552
|Fixed charges                      |  |                          | 5,048  |      |   | 7,328  |  |      | 14,351 |      |   | 19,783 |  |   | 19,766
|                                   |  |                          |        |      |   |        |  |      |        |      |   |        |  |   |       
|Total earnings                     |  | $                        | 27,738 |      | $ | 42,204 |  | $    | 66,781 |      | $ | 94,693 |  | $ | 75,318
|                                   |  |                          |        |      |   |        |  |      |        |      |   |        |  |   |       
|                                   |  |                          |        |      |  
|Fixed Charges                      |  |                          |        |      |   |        |  |      |        |      |   |        |  |   |       
|Interest expense **                |  | $                        | 4,986  |      | $ | 7,267  |  | $    | 14,053 |      | $ | 19,151 |  | $ | 18,896
|Rental interest factor             |  |                          | 62     |      |   | 61     |  |      | 298    |      |   | 632    |  |   | 870   
|                                   |  |                          |        |      |   |        |  |      |        |      |   |        |  |   |       
|Total fixed charges                |  | $                        | 5,048  |      | $ | 7,328  |  | $    | 14,351 |      | $ | 19,783 |  | $ | 19,766
|                                   |  |                          |        |      |   |        |  |      |        |      |   |        |  |   |       
|                                   |  |                          |        |      |  
|Ratio of earnings to fixed charges |  |                          | 5.5x   |      |   | 5.8x   |  |      | 4.7x   |      |   | 4.8x   |  |   | 3.8x  



|* | Excludes equity earnings from investees and includes capitalized interest.
|- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------

|** | Includes capitalized interest.
|-- | ------------------------------
NUMBER 13-08-00427-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

______________________________________________________________

JAIME LEAL, Appellant,

v.

CITY OF BROWNSVILLE, TEXAS, Appellee.

_____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1

of Cameron County, Texas.

______________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza, and Vela

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Jaime Leal, appealed a judgment entered by the County Court at Law No.

1 of Cameron County, Texas. On July 3, 2008, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant

that the notice of appeal failed to comply with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.5(e).

See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.5(e). The Clerk directed appellant to file an amended notice of
2

appeal with the district clerk's office within 30 days from the date of that notice. On

October 14, 2008, the Clerk notified appellant that the defect had not been corrected and

warned appellant that the appeal would be dismissed if the defect were not cured within

ten days. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b),(c). To date, the defect has not been corrected. 

The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant’s failure to

correct this defect, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed. See id.

42.3(b),(c). Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION.

PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and 

filed this the 5th day of February, 2009.
Exhibit 3.4

Exhibit A
Preferred Stock.  A Class of 8,000,000 "blank check" preferred shares, $0.001 par value,which may be converted to common stock on terms and conditions set out by the Boardof Directors from time to time.

The Board of Directors is authorized, subject to limitations prescribed by law, to providefor the issuance of the shares of such preferred stock to series, and to establish from timeto time the number of shares to be included ineach series, and to fix the designation, powers, preferences and relative, participating, optional or other special rights of theshares of each series and the qualifications, irritations or restrictions thereof.

The authority of the Board with respect to each series of preferred stock shall include, butnot be limited to, determination of the following: 

A.    A number of shares constituting the series and distinctive designation of theseries;

B.    The dividend rate of the shares of the series, whether dividends shall becumulative, and, if so, for which date or dates, and the relative rights of priority, if any, ofpayments of the dividends on the shares of the series;

C.    Whether the series will have voting rights, and if so, the terms of the votingrights; 

D.    Whether the series will have conversion privileges, and, if so, the terms andconditions of the conversion, including provision for adjustment of the conversion rate insuch events as the Board of Directors determines;

E.    Whether the shares will be redeemable, and, if so, the terms and conditions ofredemption, including the date or dates upon or after which they shall be redeemable, andthe amount per share payable in case of redemption, whichamount may vary under different conditions and at different redemption rates; 

F.    Whether the series shall have a sinking fund for the redemption or purchase of theshares of the series, and, if so, the terms and amount of the sinking fund; 

G.    The rights of the shares in the series in the event of voluntary or involuntaryliquidation, dissolution or winding up of the Corporation, and the relative rights orpriority, if any, of payment of shares of the series; and

H.    Any other relative terms, rights, preferences and limitation, if any, of the series asthe Board of Directors may lawfully fix under the laws of the State of Nevada as in effectat the time of the creation of suchseries.
exv10w2



 












Exhibit 10.2




Schedule
of Grants Made Under the Form of 2006-2008 Performance Share Agreement




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	Total No. of Shares	 	 	 	 
	Name	 	Title	 	 	Target Shares*	 	 	Underlying Grant**	 	 	Plan Governing Grant	 
	David Goronkin
	 	Chief Executive Officer	 	 	29,900	 	 	 	59,800	 	 	1995 Stock Option and
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	Compensation Plan
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
	Diana Purcel
	 	Vice President, Chief Financial	 	 	7,200	 	 	 	14,400	 	 	1995 Stock Option and
	 
	 	Officer and Secretary	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	Compensation Plan
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Christopher O’Donnell
	 	Senior Vice President –	 	 	6,200	 	 	 	12,400	 	 	1995 Stock Option and
	 
	 	Operations	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	Compensation Plan
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	1997 Employee Stock
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	Option Plan and 2005
	Additional
Employees*
	 	 	 	 	 	 	36,900	 	 	 	73,800	 	 	Stock Incentive Plan
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Total
	 	 	 	 	 	 	80,200	 	 	 	160,400	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	* Management
may grant additional performance shares to employees other than
officers based on individual performance criteria.








5
# EUR-Lex - 52005AP0291 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 52005AP0291

**European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Financial Instrument for the Environment (LIFE+) (COM(2004)0621 - C6-0127/2004 - 2004/0218(COD)) **

*
Official Journal 157 E , 06/07/2006 P. 0451 - 0463 *

P6_TA(2005)0291

Financial Instrument for the Environment (LIFE+) ***I

European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Financial Instrument for the Environment (LIFE+) (COM(2004)0621 — C6-0127/2004 — 2004/0218(COD))

(Codecision procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

- having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2004) 0621) [1],

- having regard to Article 251(2) and Article 175(1) of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C6-0127/2004),

- having regard to Rule 51 of its Rules of Procedure,

- having regard to the report of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety and the opinion of the Committee on Budgets (A6-0131/2005),

1. Approves the Commission proposal as amended;

2. Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it intends to amend the proposal substantially or replace it with another text;

3. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and Commission.

[1] Not yet published in OJ.

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