alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In
connection with the Quarterly Report of SeaBright Insurance Holdings, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, John G. Pasqualetto, Chairman, President and 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: (1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2)
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. Dated: May
 11, 2009/s/ John G.
 PasqualettoJohn G.
 PasqualettoChairman, President and Chief Executive Officer 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 SeaBright Insurance
Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by SeaBright Insurance Holdings, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Jeffrey L. HARRIS, Petitioner v. Judy P. SMITH, Warden

No. 19-5951

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 21, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
Daryl SCOTT, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES

No. 19-6283

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 18, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied.
Eugene J. SONNIER, II, Petitioner v. CATHOLIC FOUNDATION OF the DIOCESE OF LAFAYETTE, et al.

No. 19-339

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 18, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit denied.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED DECEMBER 2 1 , 2023

NO. 03

- 21

- 00669

- CV

NuStar Energy, L.P , Appellant

v.

Glenn Hegar, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas; and Ken Paxton, Attorney General of the St ate of Texas , Appellee s

APPEAL FROM THE 98TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE, JUSTICES KELLY AND SMITH

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE

This is an appeal f rom the order signed by the tr i a l court on December 8, 2021

. Having reviewed

the record and the parties’ arguments, the C ourt holds that there was no reversible error in the

trial cou r t’s order

. Therefore, the C ourt affirms the trial court’s order

. The appellant shall pay

all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and in the court below.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 1907

WADDELL BYNUM, JR. , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. SECOND WARD HIGH SCHOOL MECKLENBURG COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD; STAFF OF SECOND WARD , Defendants

– Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Charlotte

. Frank D. Whitney , Chief District Judge. ( 3:19

- cv
- 00316

- FDW

- DSC )

Submitted : December 19, 2019 Decided: December 23, 2019

Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and QUATTLEBAUM , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Waddell Bynum, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Waddell Bynum, Jr., appeals from the district court’s order and judgment dismissing
his complaint because it was barred by the statute of limitations and Bynum did not raise any claims against the defendants. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34 ( b). Because Bynum’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, Bynum has forfeited appellate review
of the court’s order. See Jackson v. Lightsey , 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (stating that “[t]he informal brie f is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequatel y presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
Erickson Meko CAMPBELL, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES;

No. 18-9631

Supreme Court of the United States.

December 9, 2019

Petition for rehearing denied.
Jesse DEAN, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-5463.

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Terence S. CHANCELLOR, Petitioner v. SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC., et al.

No. 19-5978

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 18, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           1,885
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   23,803
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,831
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         228,411
<DEPRECIATION>                                  21,111
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 227,157
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,180
<BONDS>                                        147,729
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         29
<COMMON>                                            39
<OTHER-SE>                                      75,030
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   227,157
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 8,545
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,762
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,218
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,896
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,669
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,415
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,415
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.10)


</TABLE>
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, February 17, 2016. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, February 17, 2016 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A16D0241. ISRAEL RADDER v. LADASHA RADDER. Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 15CV11970
Hubert YOUTE, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-9381

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 07, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
# C_2018332EN.01000202.xml

| 19.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 332/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 332/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9078 — Ivanhoe Cambridge/PSPIB/VGMV LP JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2018/C 332/04)

On 29 August 2018, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32018M9078. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32018M9078. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
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. 07-41159

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

EDMUNDO RUFINO,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:05-CR-1776-2

Before JOLLY, WIENER and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Edmundo Rufino has moved for leave

to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386

U.S. 738 (1967). Rufino has filed a response. Our independent review of the

record, counsel’s brief, and Rufino’s response discloses no nonfrivolous issue for

appeal. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, Rufino’s

motion for appointment of substitute counsel is DENIED, counsel is excused

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

January 8, 2010

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

Case: 07-41159 Document: 00511000154 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/08/2010
No. 07-41159

2

from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See

5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

Case: 07-41159 Document: 00511000154 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/08/2010
FATHER, Petitioner v. MATERNAL GRANDPARENTS

No. 19-6250

Supreme Court of the United States.

December 16, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Cuyahoga County denied.
Exhibit 10.2





AMENDMENT TO SENIOR EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT





This Amendment (“Amendment”) to the Senior Executive Employment Agreement (the “Agreement”) is made as of May 16, 2011 (the “Effective Date”), by and among VIASPACE Green Energy, Inc., a British Virgin Islands company (“Company”), and Carl Kukkonen, a resident of the State of California, United States of America (“Executive”).  Capitalized terms shall have the meaning ascribed thereto in the Agreement.




RECITALS




The parties entered into the Agreement on May 14, 2010.





The parties desire to change the manner of payment in the second year of the Agreement.





AGREEMENT





The parties hereby agree to amend the Agreement as follows:





1.4 Compensation and Benefits.




(a)           Base Compensation.  In consideration of the Services to be rendered to Company by Executive and Executive's covenants under this Agreement, Company agrees to pay Executive during the Employment Term a salary at the annual rate of no less than Two Hundred Forty Thousand Dollars ($240,000) (the “Base Compensation”), less statutory deductions and withholdings, payable in accordance with Company's regular payroll practices.  Notwithstanding the foregoing, for the first consecutive twenty-four (24) calendar month period from May 14, 2010, Executive’s Base Compensation shall be paid by VIASPACE Inc., in the form of VIASPACE common stock as approved by the VIASPACE Board on October 22, 2008.




Except to the extent the Agreement is modified by this Amendment, the remaining terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain unmodified and be in full force and effect.









[signature page follows]












IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed on the date first set forth above.





VIASPACE Green Energy Inc.Signature: /s/ Sung Hsien ChangPrinted Name: Sung Hsien ChangTitle: President








EXECUTIVESignature: /s/ Carl KukkonenPrinted Name:  Carl Kukkonen








VIASPACE Inc. hereby agrees to pay Executive the compensation described in the second sentence of Section 1.4(a) of this Agreement by issuing to Executive shares of VIASPACE common shares having a value required to satisfy such obligation; and (b) be subject to the terms and conditions of Section 3 of this Agreement as a party hereto, including, without limitation, Sections 3.12 and 3.13.








AGREED AND ACKNOWLEDGED:



VIASPACE Inc.



Signature: /s/ Carl KukkonenPrinted Name: Carl KukkonenTitle: President & CEO
Amon Rweyemamu MTAZA, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES

No. 19-6698

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 13, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 6
<CIK> 0000873637
<NAME> SB Int'l All Cap Growth Portfolio
<SERIES>
   <NUMBER>002
   <NAME>Smith Barney World Funds, Inc.

<S>                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>              Year
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  Oct-31-2001
<PERIOD-END>                       Oct-31-2000
<INVESTMENTS-AT-COST>              966,477,033
<INVESTMENTS-AT-VALUE>           1,495,759,114
<RECEIVABLES>                       62,732,801
<ASSETS-OTHER>                     213,172,916
<OTHER-ITEMS-ASSETS>                         0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                   1,771,664,831
<PAYABLE-FOR-SECURITIES>                     0
<SENIOR-LONG-TERM-DEBT>                      0
<OTHER-ITEMS-LIABILITIES>          225,041,235
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES>                225,041,235
<SENIOR-EQUITY>                              0
<PAID-IN-CAPITAL-COMMON>           791,900,704
<SHARES-COMMON-STOCK>               27,890,843
<SHARES-COMMON-PRIOR>               22,358,327
<ACCUMULATED-NII-CURRENT>             (438,362)
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-NII>                       0
<ACCUMULATED-NET-GAINS>            225,893,597
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-GAINS>                     0
<ACCUM-APPREC-OR-DEPREC>           529,267,657
<NET-ASSETS>                     1,546,623,596
<DIVIDEND-INCOME>                    9,506,117
<INTEREST-INCOME>                    5,057,704
<OTHER-INCOME>                               0
<EXPENSES-NET>                      21,342,345
<NET-INVESTMENT-INCOME>             (6,778,524)
<REALIZED-GAINS-CURRENT>           231,801,774
<APPREC-INCREASE-CURRENT>          (78,543,209)
<NET-CHANGE-FROM-OPS>              146,480,041
<EQUALIZATION>                               0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-INCOME>            7,122,163
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-GAINS>            35,087,091
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OTHER>                        0
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-SOLD>            480,556,756
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-REDEEMED>        476,277,455
<SHARES-REINVESTED>                  1,253,215
<NET-CHANGE-IN-ASSETS>              78,796,931
<ACCUMULATED-NII-PRIOR>              4,178,735
<ACCUMULATED-GAINS-PRIOR>           94,970,580
<OVERDISTRIB-NII-PRIOR>                      0
<OVERDIST-NET-GAINS-PRIOR>                   0
<GROSS-ADVISORY-FEES>               13,571,951
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           0
<GROSS-EXPENSE>                     21,342,345
<AVERAGE-NET-ASSETS>               595,270,920
<PER-SHARE-NAV-BEGIN>                   26.750
<PER-SHARE-NII>                         (0.080)
<PER-SHARE-GAIN-APPREC>                  0.060
<PER-SHARE-DIVIDEND>                     0.380
<PER-SHARE-DISTRIBUTIONS>                1.860
<RETURNS-OF-CAPITAL>                     0.000
<PER-SHARE-NAV-END>                     24.490
<EXPENSE-RATIO>                           1.21



</TABLE>
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT DAVID ALB E R T O PALM A-C HAVEZ, Pe titione r,
v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 12-72218 Age n c y No. A201-148-624
M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d

June 14, 2016 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : C LIFTON a

nd IKUTA, C irc uit Judge s a nd LAM B ER TH, *** Se nior Distric t Judge
. David Pa lm a -C have z , a

native and c itiz e n of M e xic o, pe titions for re vie w of the B IA’ s de c ision a ffirm ing thede nia l of his a pplic ations for a sy lum , withholding



# FIL ED JUN 20 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honora

ble R oy c e C . Lam

be rth, Se nior Distric t Judgefor the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of C olum bia , sitting by

de signa tion.of re m ova l, a nd C AT re l ie f. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252 a nd de ny the p e tition. Pa lm a argue s tha

t the B IA e rre d in its de te rm ination tha t he doe s not be long to a c ogniz a

ble pa rtic ula r soc ia l group for purpose s of withholding re lie f. Howe ve r, e ve n if Pa lm a

we re a m e m be r of suc h

a group, he ha s not c onte ste d be fore this c ourt the B oa

rd’ s c onc lusion tha

t his withholding c l a im

none the le ss fa ils be c a use of insuffic i e nt e vide nc e tha t “ any pe rse c ution wa s or will be on
ac c ount o f his m e m

be rship in suc h group.” Ay ala v . Holde r , 640 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th C ir. 2011) (pe r c uriam ) (e m pha sis in origina

l). He ha s the re fore wa ive d a ny argum e nt to tha

t e ffe c t, M

artine z–Se rrano v . IN

S , 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th C ir. 1996), a nd the B oa

rd’ s de nia l of withholding re lie f on tha t ba sis m ust be uphe ld. The B IA a lso did not err in fa iling to c onside r Pa lm a ’ s c la im for C A T re lie f. The B oa rd sta te d t hat it de e m e d

the issue wa ive d be c a

u se of Pa l m a ’ s fa ilure to
m e aningfully c ha lle nge the IJ’ s de nia l of C AT re lie f on a ppe a l . Although Palm a brie fly m e ntione d his C AT c la im in his brie f be fore the B IA, he fa ile d to spe c ific a lly

c ha lle nge any

of the IJ’ s le ga l c onc lusions or fa c tua l findings. Ac c ordingly , the B oa

rd did not err in holding those c la im s wa ive d. PE T IT IO N DE NIE D
.

2
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 Annual Report of Leader Hill Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the year ended
November 30, 2019 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), The undersigned
hereby certifies, 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 and belief:



| | (1) | The Report fully
    complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                                  
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |     |                                                                                                                                                            
| | (2) | The information
    contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
    Company.



|Date:
    July 10, 2020 |        |                                              
|----------------------- | ------ | ---------------------------------------------
|                        | By:    | /s/
    Seah Chia Yee                        
|                        | Title: | President, Secretary,
    Treasurer, Director



A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise
adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.