alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>


                                                                   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

    Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and in connection
with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of The Enstar Group, Inc. (the
"Corporation") for the period ended June 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, the
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation, certifies 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
Corporation.

/s/ Nimrod T. Frazer
-----------------------------------------
Nimrod T. Frazer
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
August 9, 2004

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to The Enstar Group, Inc. and will be retained by The Enstar Group,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.




                                      27
chrismarquezsecondallonge.htm


    
      
         


      

      
         


        
          

        

      

      
         


      

    


    SECOND
ALLONGE TO

    CONVERTIBLE

    PROMISSORY
NOTE

    DATED
FEBRUARY 28, 2006

    


    This Second Allonge (the “Second
Allonge”) dated as of July 26, 2007, attached to and forming a part of the
Convertible Promissory Note, dated February 28, 2006 (collectively, the “Note”),
made by ECOLOGY COATINGS, INC., a California corporation (the “Company”),
payable to the order of CHRIS L. MARQUEZ (the “Holder”), in the original
principal amount of $300,000.

    


    1.           The
first paragraph of the Note is hereby amended and restated in its entirety as
follows:

    


    
      	
               
      

            	
              FOR
      VALUE RECEIVED, ECOLOGY COATINGS, INC., a California corporation
      (“Company”), promises to pay to Chris L. Marquez (“Holder”) or his
      registered assigns, in lawful money of the United States of America the
      principal sum of ONE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND Dollars ($150,000), or such
      lesser amount as shall be equal to the outstanding principal amount
      hereof, together with interest from the date of this Convertible
      Promissory Note (the “Note”) on the unpaid principal balance at a rate
      equal to fifteen percent (15%) per annum, computed on the basis of the
      actual number of days elapsed and a year of 365 days. All unpaid
      principal, together with any then unpaid and accrued interest and other
      amounts payable hereunder, shall be due and payable on the earlier of (i)
      December 31, 2007 (the “Maturity Date”), or (ii) when, upon or after the
      occurrence of an Event of Default (as defined below), such amounts are
      declared due and payable by Holder or made automatically due and payable
      in accordance with the terms hereof. This Note is one of a duly authorized
      series of Convertible Promissory Notes of the Company that may be issued
      by the Company from time to time of like tenor and effect (except for such
      variation as may be necessary to express the name of the payee, the
      number, the date, and the principal amount of each note) each dated on or
      after February 28, 2006 (the “Bridge
Notes”).

            


    

    


    2.           In
all other respects, the Note is confirmed, ratified, and approved and, as
amended by this Second Allonge, shall continue in full force and
effect.

    


    


    [This
space intentionally left blank]

    


    


    


    


    


    


    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company and
Holder have caused this Second Allonge to be executed and delivered as of the
date and year first above written.

    


    ECOLOGY COATINGS, INC.

    


    


    


    By:  /s/ Adam S.
Tracy

    Adam S. Tracy, Esq.

    Its:           Vice
President

    


    


    Accepted and agreed to:

    


    


    /s/ Chris L
Marquez

    CHRIS L. MARQUEZ
Case 1:07-cv-03500-PAC     Document 4      Filed 09/26/2007     Page 1 of 2

Case 1:07-cv-03500-PAC     Document 4      Filed 09/26/2007     Page 2 of 2
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Housing and Urban Development

          - [Docket No. FR-4980-N-49]

# AGENCY

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for possible use to assist the homeless.

# EFFECTIVE DATE:

December 9, 2005.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kathy Ezzell, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Room 7262, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 708-1234; TTY number for the hearing- and speech-impaired (202) 708-2565 (these telephone numbers are not toll-free), or call the toll-free Title V information line at 1-800-927-7588.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    In accordance with the December 12, 1988 court order in                     *National Coalition for the Homeless*                     v.                     *Veterans Administration.*                     No. 88-2503-OG (D.D.C.), HUD publishes a Notice, on a weekly basis, identifying unutilized, underutilized, excess and surplus Federal buildings and real property that HUD has reviewed for suitability for use to assist the homeless. Today's Notice is for the purpose of announcing that no additional properties have been determined suitable or unsuitable this week.                

Dated: December 1, 2005.

Mark R. Johnston, 

Director, Office of Special Needs Assistance Programs.

[FR Doc. 05-23690 Filed 12-8-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4210-29-M
#### HORNE v. WALL

No. 129 PC.

Case below: 27 N.C. App. 373.

Petition for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 3 February 1976.
Exhibit 4.7

      

       

      TERMINATION AGREEMENT

      

      

      Between

      

      

      DHT Management Pte. Ltd.

      (“Employer”)

      

      

      and

      

      

      Svein Moxnes Harfjeld

      (“Executive”)

       

      Executive has been employed by Employer pursuant to an employment agreement of 20 December 2018 (the “Employment Agreement”). Executive and Employer
        have agreed that the Employment Agreement shall be terminated on the terms set out in this termination agreement (“the Agreement”).

      

      

      All abbreviations in the Agreement shall, unless otherwise expressly stated herein, have the same meaning as in the Employment Agreement.

       

      
        
          	1	
                  TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT

                


        

      

       

      
        
          	1.1	
                  The Parties agree that Executive’s employment with Employer shall formally terminate at the end of business hours on 31 October 2019 (the “Termination Date”).

                


        

      

       

      
        
          	1.2	
                  The Executive shall maintain and receive his salary and other benefits as set out in the Employment Agreement, up to and including the Termination Date.

                


        

      

       

      
        
          	2	
                  MISCELLANEOUS

                


        

      

       

      
        
          	2.1	
                  Executive confirms that he will not in any way dispute the termination of his employment with Employer and/or put forward any claims against Employer other than those set out in this Agreement.

                


        

      

      

      

      
        
          	2.2	
                  Executive confirms that this is full and final settlement and that he is not entitled to any severance payment as set out in the Employment Agreement or otherwise as a result of the termination of employment
                    with Employer.

                


        

      

      

      

      
        
          	2.3	
                  All payments made under this Agreement are subject to normal tax deductions.

                


        

      

       

      * * *

       

      

      
        IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have duly executed this Agreement as of the date stated below.

        

        
          	Place, date:	 	Place, date:	 
	 	 	 	 
	/s/ Svein Moxnes Harfjeld	 	

                	 
	Svein Moxnes Harfjeld	 	
                  DHT Management Pte. Ltd.
#### STATE v. ALLEN

No. 89 PC.

Case below: 34 N.C. App. 260.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 15 December 1977.
[DO NOT PUBLISH] 

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 13-11543

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 8:09-cr-00067-VMC-AEP-4

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

WILLIAM JOSEPH CALIFANO,

a.k.a. Billy,

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

(October 21, 2013)

Before WILSON, PRYOR and JORDAN, Circuit Judges.

Case: 13-11543 Date Filed: 10/21/2013 Page: 1 of 2 
2

PER CURIAM:

Joseph Johnson, counsel for William Joseph Califano, 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 is GRANTED, 

and Califano’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.

Case: 13-11543 Date Filed: 10/21/2013 Page: 2 of 2
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 2023

- 0728

_____________________________ O SCAR E. G ONZALEZ , Appellant,

v.

F LORIDA F ISH AND W ILDLIFE C ONSERVATION C OMMISSION , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County

. Angela C. Dempsey , Judge

. August 27, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. R OBERTS , W INOKUR , and L ONG , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Marie A. Mattox and Ashley N. Richardson of Marie A. Mattox, P.A., Tallahassee
, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Glen A. Bassett, Special Counsel, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
Order entered August 2, 2013

In The



## Court of Appeals

**Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05

- 12

- 01491

- CV

GARY C. EVANS, Appellant

V.

THE FROST NATIONAL B ANK, Appellee

On Appeal from the 162nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Cou rt Cause No. 09

- 15818



### O RDER

The Court has before it appellant’s July 31, 2013 unopposed motion for extension of time

to file appellant’s reply brief. The Court GRANTS the motion and ORDERS that any reply

brief be filed by August 21, 2013.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS

JUSTICE
Exhibit 31.2  CERTIFICATIONS

I, Beverly A Cummings., Chief Financial Officer of PrimeEnergy Corporation, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of PrimeEnergy Corporation.

2.   Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to  make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by  this quarterly report;

3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report.

4.   The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

          a)   designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

          b)   evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

          c)   presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5.   The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit  committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function);

          a)   all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of  internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

          b)   any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6.   The registrant's other certifying officer and I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

August 11, 2005  
/s/ Beverly A. Cummings.   
-------------------------------------
  
Beverly A Cummings   
Chief Financial Officer   
PrimeEnergy Corporation
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

EASTERN DISTRICT 

ROBERT FENNELL, 

 Petitioner 

 v. 

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 

 Respondent 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 617 EAL 2015 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Commonwealth Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 29th day of December, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of 

Appeal is DENIED. 

Mr. Justice Eakin did not participate in the decision of this matter.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-7533

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JERMOL CHIN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District

Judge. (1:06-cr-00552-WDQ-1; 1:10-cv-02093-WDQ)

Submitted: January 18, 2011 Decided: January 28, 2011

Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jermol Chin, Appellant Pro Se. Debra Lynn Dwyer, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jermol Chin seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

treating his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as a successive 28 

U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motion, and dismissing it on 

that basis. The order is not appealable unless a circuit 

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 

(4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of appealability will not issue 

absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court 

denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard 

by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and 

conclude that Chin has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss 

the appeal.
3

Additionally, we construe Chin’s notice of appeal and 

informal brief as an application to file a second or successive 

§ 2255 motion. United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 

(4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a 

successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on 

either: (1) newly discovered evidence, not previously 

discoverable by due diligence, that would be sufficient to 

establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for 

constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found 

the movant guilty of the offense; or (2) a new rule of 

constitutional law, previously unavailable, made retroactive by 

the Supreme Court to cases on collateral review. 28 U.S.C.A.

§ 2255(h) (West Supp. 2010). Chin’s claims do not satisfy 

either of these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to 

file a successive § 2255 motion.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 229 (Wednesday, November 30, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 71850]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-23450]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Report No. 2742]


Petitions for Reconsideration of Action in Rulemaking Proceeding

November 21, 2005.
    Petitions for Reconsideration have been filed in the Commission's 
Rulemaking proceeding listed in this Public Notice and published 
pursuant to 47 CFR Section 1.429(e). The full text of these documents 
is available for viewing and copying in Room CY-B402, 445 12th Street, 
SW., Washington, DC or may be purchased from the Commission's copy 
contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI) (1-800-378-3160). 
Oppositions to these petitions must be filed by December 15, 2005. See 
Section 1.4(b)(1) of the Commission's rules (47 CFR 1.4(b)(1)). Replies 
to an opposition must be filed within 10 days after the time for filing 
oppositions have expired.
    Subject: In the Matter of Amendment of Section 73.202(b) Table of 
Allotments, FM Broadcast Stations, Glenville, Weaverville, and Clyde, 
North Carolina; Tazewell, Tennessee (MB Docket 02-352).
    In the Matter of Amendment of Section 73.202(b) Table of 
Allotments, FM Broadcast Stations, Elberton and Union Point, Georgia 
(MB Docket 05-191).
    Number of Petitions Filed: 1.

    Subject: In the Matter of FM Table of Allotments, Oolitic, Indiana, 
94.1 MHz, Channel 231A (MB Docket 03-98).
    Number of Petitions Filed: 1.

William F. Caton,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 05-23450 Filed 11-29-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
#### STATE v. LESSIE MAE SHAW.

(Filed 25 November, 1964.)

Appeal by defendant from *Brock, S.J.,*assigned mixed session 20 July 1964 of ONSlow.

Criminal prosecution on an indictment charging that defendant on 30 December 3963 feloniously, wilfully, and of her malice aforethought did kill and murder William Shaw. G.S. 15-144. William Shaw was defendant’s husband. Prior to the commencement of the trial, the prosecuting officer for the State announced that he would not ask for a verdict higher than murder in the second 'degree.

Plea: Not guilty. Verdict: Guilty of manslaughter.

From a judgment of imprisonment' in the Women’s Division of the State Prison for a period of not less than five years nor more than seven years, defendant appeals. ' - '

*Attorney General T. W. Bruton ■ and Deputy Attorney General Harry W. McGalliard for the State.*

*Yarborough, Blanchard •& Tucker f of defendant appellant.*

Per Curiam.

Defendant offered evidence tending to show that she killed her husband in self-defense. Her sole assignment of error, except two formal ones, is to a portion of the charge in respect to her defense that she killed her husband in self-defense. A charge must be read as a whole and not in detached fragments. A close study of the judge’s charge in its entirety shows clearly that the court charged fully, amply, and correctly on all aspects of the law of self-defense arising upon the evidence in the case, and that the law given the jury for its guidance in determining the merits of defendant’s claim of self-defense was as declared in the following cases, and almost in the verbatim language of these cases: *S. v. Fowler,*250 N.C. 595, 108 S.E. 2d 892; *S. v. Goode,*
      *100249 N.C. 632, 107 S.E. 2d 70; *S. v. Rawley,*237 N.C. 233, 74 S.E. 2d 620; *S. v. Ellerbe,*223 N.C. 770, 28 S.E. 2d 519; *S. v. Robinson,*213 N.C. 273, 195 S.E. 824; *S. v. Marshall,*208 N.C. 127, 179 S.E. 427.

In the trial below we find

No error.
**CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS**





We
      consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated November 8, 2006
      relating to the consolidated financial statements of Platinum Group Metals
      Ltd.
      (which report on the financial statements expresses an unqualified opinion
      and
      includes a separate report titled Comments by Independent Registered Chartered
      Accountants on Canada - United States of America reporting differences referring
      to Platinum Group Metals Ltd.’s ability to continue as a going concern and
      appearing in the Annual Report on Form 40-F of Platinum Group Metals Ltd. for
      the year ended August 31, 2006.











Independent
      Registered Chartered Accountants


Vancouver,
      Canada


November
      29, 2007
#### SCHELL v. RICE

No. 38 PC.

Case below: 37 N.C. App. 377.

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 4 October 1978.