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


CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002











In
connection with the Annual Report of GeoGlobal Resources Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on June 10, 2008 and this Form 10-K/A (the "Report") filed
hereof, I, Jean Paul Roy, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that, to the best of my knowledge:





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
      for the periods presented.

















/s/ Jean
Paul Roy


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


Jean Paul
Roy


President
and Chief Executive Officer


January
16, 2009
2018 DTV SHREDDER ALL SEASON - ALL TERRAIN 

147737.pdf
TRACK SYSTEM VERSATILITY

A NEW FORM OF EXCITMENT

The DTV Shredder is an all terrain, all season fun machine. 

Radical in style yet exhilarating and easy to ride. A sensational mix 

of snowboarding, skateboarding, surfing and jetskiing on land not 

to mention one exceptional conversation piece.

Initially designed for military and recreational use on dirt, 

mud, sand and snow, the DTV Shredder has revolutionized the 

Powersports market and pushed boundaries for demographics 

while adding a new market segment where the DTV Shredder 

stands alone. Everybody – everywhere wants a DTV Shredder.

The DTV Shredder suspension 

utilizes a novel approach to 

track driven vehicles. The drive 

system delivers a much higher 

power efficiency and keeps the 

dual tracks firmly planted on the 

ground. The front area is clear 

of any drivetrain, therefore, full 

attention to damping can be 

utilized meaning a full double 

articulated mechanism can 

absorb both frontal and lower 

shock loads. 

The next and most visible 

system is the “X” shaped middle 

suspension. This is also another 

double articulated mechanism 

that is unparalleled in groundforming shock absorption. This 

enables the Shredder to conform 

to virtually any surface while 

removing all track vibration. 

This mechanism provides the 

bases for the Shredders amazing 

manoeuvrability and stability at 

both high and low speeds.

The DTV Shredder is the best multi purpose all season 

machine on the market.

DTVMOTORCORP.COM

MOTOR CORPORATION MOTOR CORPORATION

2018 DTV SHREDDER

147737.pdf
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22
- 0529 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. JASSIE LAYDELL WESTERMAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including February 27 , 2023 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

January 18 2023

01/18/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0529
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
The Company's 10Q and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                              JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                              1
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  13,832
<ALLOWANCES>                                       93
<INVENTORY>                                    13,273
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               27,890
<PP&E>                                         71,455
<DEPRECIATION>                                 46,129
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 55,519
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          11,722
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                           56
<OTHER-SE>                                     39,891
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   39,947
<SALES>                                        42,892
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               42,892
<CGS>                                          38,835
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  38,835
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                4,381
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 31
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (355)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (355)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (355)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   ($0.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 ($0.06)



</TABLE>
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

September 17, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-3517

PEER Bearing Company: 

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/%2434_Billion_Exclusions_Gr

anted_September.pdf. 

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs products covered by a specially drafted description contained in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.90

                        [LETTERHEAD OF STEPHEN DANIELS]


                           Monday, November 17, 1997



Ira C. Norris
President
INCO Homes Corporation
1282 W. Arrow Hwy.
Upland, CA 91786

Re:  Lease Extension
     INCO Homes Corporation
     1282 W. Arrow Hwy., Suite 101 & 200
     Upland, CA 91786
     Approximately 6,787 sq. ft.

Dear Ira,

  This letter will act as an Amendment to the Lease Agreement dated October 1,
1995 by and between G&N INVESTMENTS, A California Limited Partnership (the
"Landlord") and INCO HOMES CORPORATION, A Delaware Corporation ("Tenant").  All
the terms and conditions of this Lease Agreement will remain the same except for
the following modification:

TERM (Paragraph C.2.):                Lease term to be extended through
                                      November 30, 2002.

  This lease extension is contingent upon Black Sable Properties, L.L.C.
successfully closing escrow number 08066-SC being held by Rancho Hills Escrow
for the purchase of 1282 W. Arrow Hwy., Upland, CA.  Thank you for your
cooperation.  Please sign and return this Amendment with the fully executed
escrow instructions.

                                      Sincerely,


                                      /s/ DAVID J. NEAULT
                                      ---------------------
                                      David J. Neault
                                      Senior Vice President

LANDLORD:                             TENANT:

G&N INVESTMENTS                       INCO HOMES CORPORATION
A California Limited Partnership      A Delaware Corporation


By: /s/ IRA C. NORRIS                 By: /s/ IRA C. NORRIS
   ------------------------------        ------------------------
   Ira C. Norris, General Partner        Ira C. Norris, President

Date:   12/1/97                       Date:   12/1/97

cc: John Wilson
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

September 17, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-5727

Radio Systems Corp: 

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/%2434_Billion_Exclusions_Gr

anted_September.pdf. 

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs products covered by a specially drafted description contained in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
#### Thomas A. Brinati, as Executor of Jerome S. Morris, Deceased, Respondent, v Southlake Properties Corporation et al., Defendants, and Russ Kidd, Inc., et al., Intervenors-Appel*962lants.

Order unanimously reversed on the law with costs and motion granted. Memorandum: Leave to amend pleadings should be freely granted *(see,*CPLR 3025 [b]). In the instant case, because the intervenors’ claim of criminal usury is supported by sufficient proof, we conclude that Supreme Court erred in denying their motion for leave to amend their answer *(cf., Newton v Aqua Flo Co.,*106 AD2d 919). Intervenors provided documentary evidence that a $25,000 check was immediately endorsed back to plaintiffs decedent as part of the $100,000 loan transaction, and submitted an affidavit from one of the participants in the transaction that the $25,000 was prepaid interest. The evidence, when liberally construed, is sufficient to support the defense of criminal usury. The intervenors, who had no knowledge of the alleged corporate loan, should be afforded an opportunity to conduct discovery to determine the true nature of the transaction. Finally, whether intervenors were privy to the loan transaction is of no moment because they were permitted to intervene and, on behalf of the corporation, assert defenses that might not otherwise have been alleged because of the other corporate shareholders’ involvement in the transaction. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Chautauqua County, Ricotta, J.— amended answer.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Denman, Pine, Law-ton and Davis, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5297 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 5297

To require the Secretary of Defense to amend the Department of Defense 
      Supplement to the Federal Acquisition Regulation to include 
   consideration of past performance of affiliates of small business 
                   concerns, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            August 29, 2023

  Mr. Bacon introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require the Secretary of Defense to amend the Department of Defense 
      Supplement to the Federal Acquisition Regulation to include 
   consideration of past performance of affiliates of small business 
                   concerns, 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. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Defense Small Business Past 
Performance Consideration Act of 2023''.

SEC. 2. CONSIDERATION OF PAST PERFORMANCE OF AFFILIATES OF SMALL 
              BUSINESS CONCERNS.

     Not later than July 1, 2024, the Secretary of Defense shall amend 
section 215.305 of the Department of Defense Supplement to the Federal 
Acquisition Regulation (or any successor regulation) to--
            (1) require that when evaluating a bid from a small 
        business concern (as defined under section 3 of the Small 
        Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632)) for a Department of Defense 
        contract, the contracting officer for such contract shall 
        consider the past performance information of affiliates of such 
        concern as the past performance of such concern; and
            (2) ensure that only past performance information of such 
        affiliates during the nine-year period preceding the date on 
        which such concern submitted a bid described in paragraph (1) 
        is considered as past performance of such concern.
                                 <all>
```
#### STATE ex rel., NORANDA ALUMINUM, INC., Relator, v. The Honorable David C. MANN, Associate Circuit Judge, Respondent.

No. 16593.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Division Two.

April 30, 1990.

Motion for Rehearing or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied May 17, 1990.

*498Lawrence H. Rost, New Madrid, Clifton A. Lake, Nanette R. Everson, McBride Baker & Coles, Chicago, for relator Noran-da Aluminum, Inc.

James E. Reeves, Caruthersville, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

In this prohibition proceeding, Rule 97,1 relator filed a petition in prohibition against The Honorable David C. Mann, Associate Circuit Judge, respondent, seeking relief from an order entered by respondent on September 18, 1989, permitting entry upon the land of relator “for inspection and videotaping” by Stella Hulshof and Robert Hulshof and their representatives. The order was issued in an underlying proceeding in which the Hulshofs were plaintiffs and relator was one of two defendants. In the underlying proceeding, plaintiffs sought damages for injuries to crops on their farm allegedly caused by the discharge of relator’s “treated waste water.” On October 27, 1989, this court issued its preliminary order in prohibition.

Rule 84.24, dealing with procedure as to original writs, provides, in pertinent part, “If the writ be issued, briefs shall be filed as is required on appeals. The brief of the relator shall be filed within 30 days from the answer date in the preliminary order.”

The answer date in the preliminary order was November 15, 1989. On December 18, 1989, relator filed, out of time, a document entitled “Brief of Relator in Support of Petition for Writ of Prohibition.” This so-called brief fails to comply with Rule 84.04, dealing with the requirements for briefs. Contrary to that rule, the so-called brief contains no jurisdictional statement, no statement of facts, and no points relied on. At best, it consists merely of a rambling argument which itself does not comply with Rule 84.04(e) dealing with argument. That rule provides, in part, that “the argument shall substantially follow the order of ‘points relied upon.’ ”

Rule 84.13(a) provides, in pertinent part, “Allegations of error not briefed or not properly briefed shall not be considered in any civil appeal.” Although this is not a civil appeal, there has been no compliance with Rule 84.04 or Rule 84.24.

By reason of the belated filing of the defective brief, this court, in the exercise of its discretion, quashes the preliminary order in prohibition and dismisses this proceeding. It is so ordered.

All concur.

1

. All references to rules are to Missouri Rules of Court, V.A.M.R.
#### Myrna D. Cohn et al., Respondents, v Middle Road Riverhead Development Corp., Appellant, et al., Defendants.

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Middle Road Riverhead Development Corporation appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Jones, J.), dated November 2, 1988, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and denied its cross motion to dismiss the complaint and (2) a judgment of foreclosure and sale of the same court, dated April 27,1989.

Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the plaintiffs are awarded one bill of costs.

The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action *(see, Matter of Aho,*39 NY2d 241, 248). The issues raised on appeal from the order *579are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment (CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).

The uncontroverted facts established that the appellant mortgagor defaulted on its first annual payment of the principal sum of $50,000 due and payable on December 31, 1987, pursuant to a mortgage and mortgage note entered into by the plaintiff mortgagees and the mortgagor. The mortgage contained an acceleration clause entitling the plaintiff mortgagees to principal and interest due and payable immediately upon the default.

Contrary to the mortgagor’s assertions, it cannot be said that the mortgagees’ conduct was unconscionable, when by letter dated January 26, 1988, the mortgagees informed the mortgagor that it was in default in payment and that unless it cured that default by February 3, 1988, the acceleration clause would be exercised. Additionally, the mortgagor received a subsequent letter dated February 23, 1988, informing it that the acceleration clause had been exercised and that the entire amount of the unpaid principal was due by virtue of the default in payment. In the same letter the mortgagor was informed that foreclosure proceedings would be instituted.

Moreover, the mortgagor may not avail himself of the defense of a good faith mistake, upon advice of counsel, that it erroneously believed that payment of the annual principal amount could be withheld until such time that the mortgagee provided it with a copy of a certificate of reduction pursuant to Real Property Law § 274-a. Such a mistake would hardly be considered trival or inconsequential and was not properly cured. Therefore, equitable intervention by the court is not warranted to relieve the default *(see, Nassau Trust Co. v Montrose Concrete Prods. Corp.,*56 NY2d 175; *Karas v Wasserman,*91 AD2d 812; *Key Intl. Mfg. v Stillman,*103 AD2d 475, *mod on other grounds*66 NY2d 924).

We have examined the mortgagor’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J. P., Kooper, Rubin and Miller, JJ., concur.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

March 15, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-5846

Fluor Enterprises, Inc:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
THIRD SUPPLEMENT DATED SEPTEMBER 26, 2000 TO THE

                 CONFIDENTIAL PRIVATE PLACEMENT MEMORANDUM DATED

                                  JUNE 28, 2000

                   INDIANA LITHOTRIPTERS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP I

                  Indiana   Lithotripters  Limited  Partnership  I,  an  Indiana
limited partnership (the "Partnership"),  by this Third Supplement hereby amends
and supplements its Confidential  Private Placement Memorandum of June 28, 2000,
as amended (the "Memorandum").  Capitalized terms used herein are defined in the
Glossary  appearing in the  Memorandum.  Persons who have  subscribed for or are
considering  an  investment  in  the  Units  offered  by the  Memorandum  should
carefully review this Third Supplement.

Extension of the Offering

                  Pursuant to the authority  given to the General Partner in the
Memorandum, the General Partner hereby elects to extend the offering termination
date to October 6, 2000 (or earlier in the  discretion  of the General  Partner,
upon the sale of all Units as provided in the Memorandum).