alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. §1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

 

In connection with the AnnualReport on Form 10-K of H.F. Financial Corp. (the “Company”) for the fiscal yearended June 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Curtis L. Hage, Chairman, President andChief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, thatto the best of my knowledge:

 

(1)                                  The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and

 

(2)                                  The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 

 
|   | /s/ Curtis  L. Hage                                               |                           |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------|
|   | Curtis L.  Hage, Chairman, President  and Chief Executive Officer |
|   |                                                              |
|   | Date:                                                             |   September 24, 2004 |   |
|        |                                                                   |                                |  |  |

 

 

----

*                                         A signed original of this written statementrequired by Section 906 has been provided to H.F. Financial Corp. and willbe retained by H.F. Financial Corp. and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

1

----
NO. 12-08-00313-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

ROBERT EARL CALIP, § APPEAL FROM THE 114TH

APPELLANT

V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE § SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Robert Earl Calip appeals his conviction for possession of a controlled substance.

Appellant’s counsel has filed a brief asserting compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738,

87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967) and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App.

1969). We dismiss Appellant’s appeal for want of jurisdiction.

BACKGROUND

Appellant was charged by indictment with possession of a controlled substance. As alleged,

the offense was a state jail felony. However, the grand jury also alleged that Appellant had two

prior, sequential felony convictions. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.42(a)(2) (Vernon 2005).

Accordingly, the range of punishment was that of a second degree felony. Id. Appellant pleaded

guilty, and the trial court placed him on deferred adjudication community supervision. Appellant

violated the terms of his community supervision. Following a hearing, the trial court found him

guilty, revoked his community supervision, and sentenced him to imprisonment for eight years. 
2

At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court asked if Appellant wished to give notice of

appeal. Appellant’s counsel informed the court that Appellant had filed “waivers.” The record

contains a waiver signed by Appellant and filed the day of the hearing. In the waiver, Appellant

stated that he understood his right to appeal, did not wish to appeal, and expressly waived his right

to appeal. Both Appellant and the trial court signed a certification confirming that Appellant had

waived his right to appeal. Weeks later, Appellant wrote to the court requesting to appeal his

conviction. Counsel was appointed, and this appeal followed. After reviewing the record, counsel

filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw.

CONCLUSION

The trial court’s certification shows that Appellant waived his right to appeal. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 25.2(d). The certification is signed by Appellant and his counsel. The clerk’s record

supports the trial court’s certification. See Greenwell v. Thirteenth Court of Appeals, 159 S.W.3d

645, 649 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610, 614–15 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. We take no action on counsel’s

motion to withdraw.

Opinion delivered August 19, 2009.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 27 (Thursday, February 9, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 7812]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-3223]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION


Notice of order Adjusting the Standard Foreign Fare Level Index

[Docket 37554]
    Section 41509(e) of Title 49 of the United States Code requires 
that the Department, as successor to the Civil Aeronautics Board, 
establish a Standard Foreign Fare Level (SFFL) by adjusting the SFFL 
base periodically by percentage changes in actual operating costs per 
available seat-mile (ASM). Order 80-2-69 established the first interim 
SFFL, and Order 94-12-15 established the currently effective two-month 
SFFL applicable through January 31, 1995.
    In establishing the SFFL for the two-month period beginning 
February 1, 1995, we have projected non-fuel costs based on the year 
ended September 30, 1994 data, and have determined fuel prices on the 
basis of the latest available experienced monthly fuel cost levels as 
reported to the Department.
    By Order 95-2-9 fares may be increased by the following adjustment 
factors over the October 1979 level:

Atlantic
 1.3924
Latin America
 1.4213
Pacific
 1.7999
Canada
 1.5129

    For further information contact: Keith A. Shangraw (202) 366-
2439.

    By the Department of Transportation: February 3, 1995
Patrick V. Murphy,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs.
[FR Doc. 95-3223 Filed 2-8-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-62-P
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3789 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3789

 To amend the Native American Tourism and Improving Visitor Experience 
  Act to authorize grants to Indian tribes, tribal organizations, and 
         Native Hawaiian organizations, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

               March 10 (legislative day, March 7), 2022

  Mr. Schatz introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
              referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Native American Tourism and Improving Visitor Experience 
  Act to authorize grants to Indian tribes, tribal organizations, and 
         Native Hawaiian organizations, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. NATIVE AMERICAN TOURISM GRANT PROGRAMS.

    The Native American Tourism and Improving Visitor Experience Act 
(25 U.S.C. 4351 et seq.) is amended--
            (1) by redesignating section 6 (25 U.S.C. 4355) as section 
        7; and
            (2) by inserting after section 5 (25 U.S.C. 4354) the 
        following:

``SEC. 6. NATIVE AMERICAN TOURISM GRANT PROGRAMS.

    ``(a) Bureau of Indian Affairs Program.--The Director of the Bureau 
of Indian Affairs may make grants to Indian tribes and tribal 
organizations to carry out the purposes of this Act, as described in 
section 2.
    ``(b) Office of Native Hawaiian Relations.--The Director of the 
Office of Native Hawaiian Relations may make grants to Native Hawaiian 
organizations to carry out the purposes of this Act, as described in 
section 2.
    ``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to be 
appropriated to the Secretary of the Interior to carry out this section 
such sums as may be necessary.''.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.1

              CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

The Board of Directors and Stockholders
OrCAD, Inc.:

  We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
Form S-8 (Nos. 333-04811, 333-15099 and 333-15145) of OrCAD, Inc. of our
reports dated January 27, 1998 relating to the consolidated balance sheets of
OrCAD, Inc. as of December 31, 1997 and 1996, and the related consolidated
statements of operations, stockholders' equity and cash flows and related
financial statement schedule for each of the years in the three-year period
ended December 31, 1997, which reports appear in the December 31, 1997 Annual
Report on Form 10-KSB of OrCAD, Inc.

                                       KMPG PEAT MARWICK LLP

Portland, Oregon
March 30, 1998
Order entered May 28, 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 13 - 01017 - CV IN THE MATTER OF CYNTHI A HOUSTON AND CHARLES ANTHONY ALLE N SR.,

On Appeal from the 292nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Cour t Cause No. CV99 - 01573 - V



### O RDER We DENY appellant’s May 22, 2014 motion to transfer records from his appeal to the Texas Supreme Court. This Court will transfer records only at the request of the Texas Supreme Court. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 54.2(a).

/s/ DAV ID LEWIS JUSTICE
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 31, 2018

No. 04-17-00175-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF C.O. ET AL., CHILDREN,

From the 37th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015PA01646

Honorable Richard Garcia, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The appellant’s third motion for extension of time to file brief is hereby GRANTED. 

Time is extended to January 29, 2018.

It is so ORDERED on January 31, 2018.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: ___________________________

 KEITH E. HOTTLE,

 Clerk of Court
```
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 33 (Friday, February 17, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9332-9333]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-4039]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-4720-4]

Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of 
EPA Comments

    Availability of EPA comments prepared January 16, 1995 Through 
January 20, 1995 pursuant to the Environmental Review Process (ERP), 
under Section 309 of the Clean Air Act and Section 102(2)(c) of the 
National Environmental Policy Act as amended. Requests for copies of 
EPA comments can be directed to the Office of Federal Activities at 
(202) 260-5076.
    An explanation of the ratings assigned to draft environmental 
impact statements (EISs) was published in FR dated April 10, 1994 (59 
FR 16807).

Draft EISs

    ERP No. D-AFS-J65225-MT Rating EC2, Crane Mountain Salvage Project, 
Resource Management, Implementation, Flathead National Forest, Swan 
Lake Ranger District, Flathead County, MT.

Summary

    EPA expressed environmental concerns about the inadequate/
identification, delineation and assessment level of wetlands, potential 
impacts to water quality in Flathead lake; and the inadequacy of the 
monitoring and evaluation plans.
    ERP No. D-NOA-A91061-00 Rating LO, Atlantic Mackerel, Squid and 
Butterfish Fisheries, Fishery Management Plan, Amendment No. 5, 
Implementation, Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) off the US Atlantic 
Coast.

Summary

    EPA offered suggestions on various aspects to improve the EIS, 
particularly including more analysis on the possible use of economic 
forces in limiting catch size.
    ERP No. DS-AFS-J65183-UT Rating LO, East Fork Black Forks Multiple 
Use Management Project, Updated Information, Implementation, Wasatch-
Cache National Forest, Evanston Ranger District, Summit County, UT.

Summary

    EPA recommends that the Final Supplement include discussion of 
monitoring data and analyses to support the Forest Service's 
conclusions regarding water quality impacts.

Final EISs

    ERP No. F-MMS-G02004-00 1995 Central and Western Gulf of Mexico 
Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Oil and Gas Sales 152 (April 1995) and 
155 (August 1995), Lease Offering, Offshore Marine Environment and 
coastal counties, AL, MS, LA and TX.

Summary

    EPA had no objection to the proposed action.
    ERP No. F1-NOA-A90061-00 Deep Seabed Hard Mining Exploration 
Project, License Issuance for the former Kenecott Mining Site (USA-4) 
to Ocean Minerals Mining, Pacific Ocean, Central America to HI.

Summary

    EPA had no objections to the proposed action. EPA encouraged NOAA 
to prepare supplemental NEPA documentation when at-sea activities are 
finally proposed by applicants. [[Page 9333]] 
    Dated: February 14, 1995.
William D. Dickerson,
Director, Federal Agency Liaison Division, Office of Federal 
Activities.
[FR Doc. 95-4039 Filed 2-16-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U
```
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000881788
<NAME>                        ICON Cash Flow Partners, L.P., Series E


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          9,460,337
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  35,711,508
<ALLOWANCES>                                      655,646
<INVENTORY>                                        24,516
<CURRENT-ASSETS> *                                      0
<PP&E>                                         20,707,984
<DEPRECIATION>                                  2,864,469
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 66,917,017
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES> **                                0
<BONDS>                                        41,272,934
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                                0
<OTHER-SE>                                     23,689,694
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   66,917,017
<SALES>                                         6,678,163
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                7,611,293
<CGS>                                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                           0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                2,771,663
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              2,471,045
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                         0
<INCOME-TAX>                                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                     0
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                    2,368,585
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        3.85
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        3.85
<FN>
*    The  Partnership  has  an  unclassified  balance  sheet  in  its  financial
     statements due to the nature of its industry.  A value of "0" was used for
     current assets and liabilities.

**   The  Partnership  has  an  unclassified  balance  sheet  in  its  financial
     statements due to the nature of its industry.  A value of "0" was used for
     current assets and liabilities.
</FN>




</TABLE>
#### D. R. OBERHOLTZER v. GEORGE W. HUFFMAN.

(Filed 31 October, 1951.)

1. Damages § 10—

Special damages, which are the natural but not the necessary result of the wrongful act of defendant, must be pleaded with sufficient particularity to put defendant on notice.

2. Malicious Prosecution § 7—

In an action for malicious prosecution, plaintiff’s allegations to the effect that he was imprisoned without privilege of bail for one evening and that the account of his arrest and the nature of the charges made against him were published in a newspaper having a wide circulation in the section and particularly in plaintiff’s county, are proper allegations of special damage and are improperly stricken on defendant’s motion.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Rudisill, J.,*in Chambers, 24 March, 1951, CAtawba.

Eever^ed.

*400Civil action to recover damages for malicious prosecution, beard on motion to strike certain allegations in the complaint.

Plaintiff alleges facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for malicious prosecution under a warrant charging the felony of embezzlement. He further alleges by way of damages that (1) he was imprisoned without the privilege of bail from the evening of 23 January to the morning of 24 January, 1951, and (2) an account of his arrest and the nature of the charges made against him was published in the Hickory Daily Record, a newspaper having a wide circulation throughout the Piedmont section of North Carolina and particularly in Catawba County where he resides.

The court below, on motion of defendant, ordered the latter allegations stricken from the complaint. Plaintiff excepted and appealed.

*Theodore F. Cummings for plaintiff appellant.*

*George D. Hovey and G. A. Warliclc for defendant appellee.*

Babnhill, J.

Special damages, that is, damages which are the natural but not necessary result of the alleged wrongful act of the defendant, must be pleaded with sufficient particularity to put the defendant on notice. *Conrad v. Shuford,*174 N.C. 719, 94 S.E. 424; *Binder v.*Ac*ceptance Corp.,*222 N.C. 512, 23 S.E. 2d 894. This the plaintiff has done. The allegations stricken are a proper and necessary part of his complaint. Hence the order striking same must be

Reversed.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 244 (Wednesday, December 20, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65729-65730]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30781]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Fiscal Service


1996 Fee Schedules for the Issuance of Definitive Securities and 
TREASURY DIRECT Securities Accounts

AGENCY: Bureau of the Public Debt, Fiscal Service, Treasury.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of the Treasury is announcing two schedules of 
fees to be charged in 1996 for marketable Treasury securities. The 
schedules are for the fees charged for the issuance of definitive 
securities and the fees for the annual maintenance of certain TREASURY 
DIRECT securities accounts.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 2, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maureen Parker, Director, Division of 
Securities Systems, Bureau of the Public Debt, Parkersburg, West 
Virginia, 26106-1328, (304) 480-7761.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On January 23, 1995, the Department of the 
Treasury established fee schedules for the issuance of definitive 
securities and the maintenance of certain TREASURY DIRECT securities 
accounts.
    The Treasury has decided that the fees for the issuance of 
definitive securities and the maintenance of certain TREASURY DIRECT 
Securities Accounts in 1996 should remain unchanged from the amounts 
currently in effect. 

[[Page 65730]]


Schedule of Fees for Definitive Securities

    The fee schedule for the issuance of a definitive security is as 
follows: a fee of $50 will be charged for each definitive security 
issued on a transfer, reissue, exchange or withdrawal from book-entry 
form, or as a result of the granting of relief on account of loss, 
theft, destruction, mutilation or defacement. Payment of the fee must 
accompany the request for the issue of securities in physical form. If 
a request results in the issuance of more than one security, the amount 
of the fee is arrived at by multiplying the number of pieces requested 
by $50. The fee announced above applies beginning January 2, 1996.

Schedule of Fees for TREASURY DIRECT Securities Accounts

    The fee schedule for TREASURY DIRECT securities accounts is as 
follows: each TREASURY DIRECT securities account holding Treasury 
bonds, notes and bills, pursuant to 31 CFR Part 357, that exceeds 
$100,000 in par amount will be charged an annual maintenance fee in the 
amount of $25. For 1996, this will be imposed on accounts exceeding 
$100,000 in par amount as of May 17, 1996. The determination as to what 
accounts are subject to the fee shall be made annually. Each account 
holder will be individually billed.

    Dated: December 7, 1995.
Van Zeck,
Acting Commissioner of the Public Debt.
[FR Doc. 95-30781 Filed 12-19-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-39-P
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

WESTERN DISTRICT 

IN RE: CLOSURE DECISION OF 

PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF 

STATE, BUREAU OF COMMISSIONS, 

ELECTIONS AND LEGISLATION 

PETITION OF: ROBERT J. FRASCONI 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 14 WM 2015 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 11th day of March, 2015, the Application for Extraordinary Relief 

is DISMISSED AS MOOT.
solarmax_ex1014.htm

EXHIBIT 10.14
  
 August 4, 2022
  
 SolarMax Technology, Inc.
 3080 12th Street
 Riverside, California 92507
  
 Ladies and Gentlemen:
  
 Reference is made to the agreement dated March 27, 2019, pursuant to which I exchanged 998,676 shares of common stock, par value $0.001 per share (“Common Stock”), of SolarMax Technology, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”) represented by a Stock Grant for (i) an option to purchase [              ] shares of Common Stock and (ii) a cash payment of $[              ] which was to have been paid by December 15, 2019 and which date was extended to December 31, 2022. This letter will confirm my prior advice to you that I agree that the date by which the cash payment is to be made to me has been extended to the earlier of December 31, 2022 or three business days after the completion of the Company’s initial public offering.  The number of shares in this letter reflect the 0.59445-for-one reverse stock split effective July 15, 2022.
  
  	 Very truly yours,
	  

	  
	  

	  /s/ 
	  

	 Name: