alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.4



PROMISSORY NOTE

FOR VALUE RECEIVED, CyPost Corporation, ("the Payer") of  900 -1281 West Georgia
Street, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V6E 3J7, promises to pay to or to
the order of John M. Peragine, ("the Payee") of 54 Madison Road, Scarsdale, New
York the sum of ONE HUNDRED SEVEN THOUSAND FIFTEEN UNITED STATES DOLLARS and
TWENTY CENTS ($107,015.20) with eight percent (8%) interest thereon, the sum
total principal and interest being due and payable ON DEMAND BY JOHN M. PERAGINE
IN WRITING.

CYPOST CORPORATION ACKNOWLEDGES THAT ITS BOARD OF DIRECTORS BYWAY OF WRITTEN
RESOLUTION HAS APPROVED THIS NOTE.

FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the Payer and all endorsers of this Note hereby waive
presentment for payment, notices or formalities to which they might be entitled
-and do hereby agree to pay all costs and expenses (including all legal costs)
paid or incurred in collecting the monies owed hereunder after the same shall
become due and payable under the laws of the State of New York, United States of
America.'
Dated at Vancouver, B.C. this 19th day of  June 2001.

CyPost Corporation

/s/ Robert Sendoh
-----------------
Robert Sendoh
Chairman of the Board
CyPost Corporation


<PAGE>
PROMISSORY NOTE

FOR INTEREST ACCRUED ON OUTSTANDING DEBT, CyPost Corporation,
("the Payer") of 900-1281 West Georgia Street, Vancouver, British Columbia,
Canada V6E 3J7, promises to pay to or to the order of John M. Peragine, ("the
Payee") of 54 Madison Road, Scarsdale, New York the sum of THIRTY TWO THOUSAND
ONE HUNDRED SIXTY FIVE UNITED STATES DOLLARS and NINETY NINE CENTS ($32,165.99)
being due and payable ON DEMAND BY JOHN M. PERAGINE IN WRITING.

CYPOST CORPORATION ACKNOWLEDGES THAT ITS BOARD OF DIRECTORS BY WAY OF WRITTEN
RESOLUTON HAS APPROVED THIS NOTE.

FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the Payer and all endorsers of this Note hereby waive
presentment for payment, notices or formalities to which they might be entitled
and do hereby agree to pay all costs and expenses (including all legal costs)
paid or incurred in collecting the monies owed hereunder after the same shall
become due and payable under the laws of the State of New York, United States of
America.
Dated at Vancouver, B.C. this  19th day of June 2001.

CyPost Corporation


/s/ Robert Sendoh
-----------------
Robert Sendoh
Chairman of the Board
CyPost Corporation


<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 23.1


                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8  No.  333-42816)  pertaining  to  the  1998 Incentive and Nonqualified Stock
Option Plan, 1992 Stock Option Plan and 1998 Employee Stock Option Purchase Plan
of  Implant  Sciences  Corporation of our report dated September 7, 2001, except
for  the  fifth  paragraph  of Note 8, as to which the date is October 12, 2001,
with  respect  to  the  financial  statements  of  Implant  Sciences Corporation
included  in  the  Annual Report (Form 10-KSB) for the year ended June 30, 2001.


                                                 /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP




Boston,  Massachusetts
October  12,  2001


<PAGE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM FORM 10-Q FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN 
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                           488,243
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                            2,492
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                              2,511
<EQUITIES>                                       3,709
<MORTGAGE>                                      10,666
<REAL-ESTATE>                                    1,518
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                 702,276
<CASH>                                           9,620
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                              15,694
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                          30,496
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,366,434
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                169,634
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                              1,095
<POLICY-OTHER>                                 516,851
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                            5,901
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                  3,564
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,184
<OTHER-SE>                                     149,740
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,366,434
<PREMIUMS>                                       5,764
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                             27,798
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                                   0
<OTHER-INCOME>                                   1,207
<BENEFITS>                                      19,422
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                        973
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                             8,032
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,504
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,977
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,527
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,527
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.27
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.26
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                         33,252 
<SECURITIES>                                        0 
<RECEIVABLES>                                 375,691 
<ALLOWANCES>                                   36,840 
<INVENTORY>                                         0 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              372,103 
<PP&E>                                        596,265 
<DEPRECIATION>                                336,879 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                671,089 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         200,729 
<BONDS>                                             0 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0 
<PREFERRED>                                         0 
<COMMON>                                    1,223,626 
<OTHER-SE>                                          0 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  671,089 
<SALES>                                        76,186 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               76,186 
<CGS>                                               0 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 124,597 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   12 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              1,563 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (48,411)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 0 
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0 
<CHANGES>                                           0 
<NET-INCOME>                                  (48,411)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.031)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.031)
        

</TABLE>
#### CHARLES RITZ KNAPP, Jr., Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.

No. 9535

March 2, 1978

575 P.2d 601

*Horace R. Goff,*State Public Defender, and *J. Thomas Sus-ich,*Chief Deputy Public Defender, Carson City, for Appellant.

*Steven D. McMorris,*District Attorney, and *William J. Cro-well, Jr.,*Deputy District Attorney, Douglas County, for Respondent.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

Knapp was convicted of conspiring to commit grand larceny. He was sentenced to serve one year in the county jail. Imposition of sentence was suspended and he was placed on probation. One condition of probation was that he serve the first 70 days in the county jail. He did so. Later, his probation was revoked and the original one-year sentence imposed. This appeal is from the order of revocation.

The main claim of error is that the district court should have given 70 days credit against the sentence to be served.1 Knapp *111was convicted of a gross misdemeanor which carries a maximum jail sentence of one year. NRS 193.140. The effect of denying credit was to impose a sentence in excess of that authorized by statute. This was error. We remand with direction to modify the sentence to give credit for time served as a condition of probation.2

1

At the revocation hearing the appellant moved for a psychiatric examination. His motion was denied and he asserts such denial as error. The contention lacks substance. Nothing was presented to the district court to justify a *111doubt that he was not able to assist in his defense or that he was incapable of distinguishing right from wrong. Hollander v. State, 82 Nev. 345, 418 P.2d 802 (1966).

2

The Governor, pursuant to Article 6, Section 4, of the Nevada Constitution designated the Honorable Michael E. Fondi, Judge of the First Judicial District, to sit in place of The Honorable Noel Manoukian, Justice, who voluntarily disqualified himself in this case.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF

PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

(SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

In connection with the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of
Maxwell Technologies, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2007, I, David Schramm, Chief Executive Officer of Maxwell Technologies, Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1) such Annual Report on Form 10-K of Maxwell Technologies,
Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2007, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2) the information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K of Maxwell Technologies, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2007,
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Maxwell Technologies, Inc. at the dates indicated.

This certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.



|                  |  |  |  |                                                                   
|----------------- |  |  |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------
|                  |  | 
|February 29, 2008 |  |  |  | /S/    DAVID
SCHRAMM                                              
|                  |  |  |  | David Schramm                                                     
|                  |  |  |  | President and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)

A signed copy of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Maxwell Technologies,
Inc. and will be retained by Maxwell Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 (ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)



In connection with the quarterly report of eCOST.com, Inc., a Delaware corporation, on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report), I, Adam Shaffer, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:



(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods indicated.



This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.



|                |  |  |  |                        
|--------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|                |  | 
|August 12, 2005 |  |  |  | /s/ Adam Shaffer       
|                |  |  |  | Adam Shaffer           
|                |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 21, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-50951

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CARLOS GARCIA-LOPEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. DR-03-CR-308-1-AML

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

Before JOLLY, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Carlos Garcia-Lopez appeals the sentence imposed following

his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States

after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 

Garcia-Lopez contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b) define separate offenses. He argues that the prior

conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an element

of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have

been alleged in his indictment. Garcia-Lopez maintains that he
No. 03-50951

-2-

pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged only simple reentry

under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds

the maximum terms of imprisonment and supervised release which

may be imposed for that offense.

In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235

(1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of

separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing

provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. 

Garcia-Lopez acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres, but asserts that the decision has been cast

into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). 

He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres

“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule

it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks

that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. 

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
Exhibit 23.1

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



Cubic Energy, Inc.



We hereby  consent  to the use in the Form  10-KSB  filing of our  report  dated
September 26, 2007,  relating to the balance  sheet of Cubic Energy,  Inc. as of
June 30, 2007 and 2006,  and the related  statements of  operations,  changes in
shareholders'  equity,  and cash flows for each of the three years in the period
ended June 30, 2007, which are contained in that filing.



PHILIP VOGEL & CO., PC

/s/ Philip Vogel & Co., PC
--------------------------




Dallas, Texas
September 27, 2007
Mark WOODLIEF, Plaintiff, v. CANAL WOOD, LLC William A. McCall as registered agent, Defendant.

No. COA18-447

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: November 6, 2018

REVERSED.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 200 (Tuesday, October 18, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60495-60496]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-20778]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Air Force


Active Duty Service Determinations for Civilian or Contractual 
Groups

    On September 26, 2005, the Secretary of the Air Force, acting as 
Executive Agent of the Secretary of Defense, determined that the 
service of the group known as ``The U.S. and Foreign Civilian Employees 
of CAT, Inc., Who Were Flight Crew Personnel (U.S. Pilots, Co-Pilots, 
Navigators, Flight Mechanics, and Air Freight Specialists) and Aviation 
Ground Support Personnel (U.S. Maintenance Supervisors, Operations 
Managers, and Flight Information Center Personnel) and Conducted 
Paramilitary Operations in Korea, French Indochina, Tibet and Indonesia 
From 1950 Through 1959; and U.S. and Foreign Civilian Employees of Air 
America Who Were Flight Crew Personnel and Ground Support Personnel, as 
Described, and Conducted Paramilitary Operations in Laos from 1961 
Through 1974, When the War in Laos Ended; and U.S. and Foreign Civilian 
Employees of Air America Who Were Flight Crew Personnel and Ground 
Support Personnel, as Described, and Conducted Paramilitary Operations 
in Vietnam From 1964 Through 1975, When Saigon Was Evacuated and Air 
America Flight Operations Ceased'' shall not be considered ``active 
duty'' for purposes of all laws administered by the Department of 
Veterans Affairs (VA).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. James D. Johnston at the Secretary 
of the

[[Page 60496]]

Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC); 1535 Command Drive, EE Wing, 3d 
Fl.; Andrews AFB, MD 20762-7002.

Bruno Leuyer,
Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 05-20778 Filed 10-17-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-05-P
1

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern

District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-2305

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Northern District of Iowa.

Brian Michael Rohrick, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: February 5, 2004

 Filed: March 16, 2004

___________

Before BYE, McMILLIAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Brian Rohrick appeals the district court’s1

 imposition of a 14-month prison

term upon revocation of his supervised release for a felon-in-possession conviction.

On appeal, he argues that the district court abused its discretion in imposing

additional imprisonment and instead should have imposed inpatient drug treatment

or at least a sentence within the Guidelines suggested range.
-2-

After a careful review of the record, we find that the sentence was well below

the maximum sentence allowed under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) and was not an abuse

of discretion. See United States v. Jasper, 338 F.3d 865, 867 (8th Cir. 2003); United

States v. Rodriguez-Favela, 337 F.3d 1020, 1021 (8th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, we

affirm, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                                  CERTIFICATION
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                    (SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350,
                   CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE)

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and
(b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the
undersigned officers of Financial Telecom Limited (USA), Inc., a Nevada
corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify with respect to the Quarterly
Report of the Company on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30 2005 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "10-QSB Report") that:

(1) the 10-QSB 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 10-QSB Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

                                            Financial Telecom Limited (US), Inc.


Date: October 31, 2005                                        By: /s/ David Chen
                                                --------------------------------
                                                                      David Chen
                                                         Chief Executive Officer

Date: October 31, 2005                                   By: /s/ Ronald Gorthuis
                                                --------------------------------
                                                                 Ronald Gorthuis
                                                         Chief Financial Officer