alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ex10one.htm


 


 










 




 


EXHIBIT 10.1

















CONSENT OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS












We consent to the use of our report dated May 13, 2010 on the financial statements of Three G Holdings, Inc. as of December 31, 2009 and the related statements of operations, stockholders’ equity and cash flows for the period September 17, 2009 (inception) to December 31, 2009, and the inclusion of our name under the heading “Experts” in the Form S-1 Registration Statement filed with the Securities & Exchange Commission.






















/s/  The Hall Group, CPAs


The Hall Group, CPAs


Dallas, Texas












May 13, 2010
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**SARBANES-OXLEY ACT SECTION 906CERTIFICATION**

In connection with this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qof Foundation Coal Corporation for the period ended June 30, 2005, I,James F. Roberts Chief Executive Officer of Foundation Coal Corporation, herebycertify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

1.                This Form 10-Qfor the period ended June 30, 2005 fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

2.                Theinformation contained in this Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30,2005 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of Foundation Coal Corporation.
| Date: September 6, 2005 |     | /s/ JAMES F.  ROBERTS     |
|------------------------------|----------|---------------------------|
|                         |     | James F. Roberts          |
| * *                     | * * | *Chief Executive Officer* |

 

----
Exhibit 10.3



ASAT Holdings Limited

Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(18 U.S.C. Section 1350)



Pursuant to the requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(18 U.S.C. Sections 1350(a) and (b)), the undersigned hereby certify as follows:



|1. |  | I, Robert J. Gange, the Chief Financial Officer of ASAT Holdings Limited (the Company).
|-- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. |  | To the best of my knowledge:
|-- |  | ----------------------------



| | (A) |  | The Companys annual reports on Form 20-F for year ended April 30, 2003 accompanying this Certification, in the form filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (B) |  | The information in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: July 28,
2003



/s/    ROBERT
GANGEName:

Robert GangeTitle:

Chief Financial 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 the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



The certification set forth above is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and should not be deemed to be filed under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by the Company or the certifying officers.
```
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 16 (Wednesday, January 24, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 1829]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-1047]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Customs Service

19 CFR Parts 10, 12, 24, 123, 134, 162, 174, 177, 178, 181 and 191

[T.D. 95-68]
RIN 1515-AB33

North American Free Trade Agreement

AGENCY: Customs Service, Department of the Treasury.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: This document makes a correction to the document published in 
the Federal Register that adopted as a final rule, with some changes, 
interim amendments to the Customs Regulations to implement the 
preferential tariff treatment and other Customs-related provisions of 
the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the North American 
Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act. The correction concerns a 
cross-reference citation within the final regulatory texts.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This correction is effective October 1, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joyce Metzger, Office of Field 
Operations (202-927-0792).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On September 6, 1995, Customs published in the Federal Register (60 
FR 46334) T.D. 95-68 to adopt as a final rule, with some changes, 
interim amendments to the Customs Regulations implementing the 
preferential tariff treatment and other Customs-related provisions of 
the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the North American 
Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, Public Law 103-182, 107 Stat. 
2057. These final NAFTA implementing regulations took effect on October 
1, 1995.
    The changes to the interim NAFTA implementing regulations as 
reflected in the September 6, 1995, final regulations included a 
redesignation of paragraph (c) of Sec. 181.76 as paragraph (d). 
However, in the first sentence of paragraph (e) of Sec. 181.76 of the 
final regulations, the cross-reference to ``paragraph (c)'' was not 
correspondingly modified to read ``paragraph (d)''. This document 
corrects this oversight.

Correction of Publication

    In the document published in the Federal Register as T.D. 95-68 on 
September 6, 1995 (60 FR 46334), on page 46379, in the first column, in 
Sec. 181.76(e), the reference to ``paragraph (c)'' in the first 
sentence is corrected to read ``paragraph (d)''.

    Dated: January 17, 1996.
Stuart P. Seidel,
Assistant Commissioner, Office of Regulations and Rulings.
[FR Doc. 96-1047 Filed 1-23-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4820-02-P
```
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 86 (Thursday, May 2, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 19641]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10951]



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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
[TA-W-31,579]


Indian Refining Lawrenceville, IL; Dismissal of Application for 
Reconsideration

    Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(C) an application for administrative 
reconsideration was filed with the Program Manager of the Office of 
Trade Adjustment Assistance for workers at Indian Refining, 
Lawrenceville, Illinois. The review indicated that the application 
contained no new substantial information which would bear importantly 
on the Department's determination. Therefore, dismissal of the 
application was issued.

TA-W-31,579; Inidan Refining Lawrenceville, Illinois (April 17, 
1996)

    Signed at Washington, D.C. this 23rd day of April, 1996.
Russell T. Kile,
Acting Program Manager, Policy & Reemployment Services, Office of Trade 
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 96-10951 Filed 5-1-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
Exhibit
13.1




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 Kobex Minerals Inc. (the "Company") on Form
20-F/A for the year ending December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Alfred Hills, Chief Executive Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 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.
 
 A signed
original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be
retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon
request.
 
 Date:  December
1, 2009
 
 
 /s/
Alfred Hills
 
 Alfred
Hills
 Chief
Executive Officer
#### In the Matter of the Liquidation of Union Indemnity Insurance Company of New York. Royal Farms, Inc., Appellant, v Superintendent of Insurance, as Liquidator of Union Indemnity Insurance Company of New York, Respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered April 6, 1989, confirming the report of Referee Hyman Korn, dated October 17, 1988, dismissing claimant Royal Farms’ demand to reform three insurance contracts issued to it by Union Indemnity Insurance Company (Union), unanimously affirmed, with costs and disbursements.

In order "to overcome the heavy presumption that a deliberately prepared and executed written instrument manifested the true intention of the parties” *(Backer Mgt. Corp. v Acme Quilting Co.,*46 NY2d 211, 219), a party seeking reformation must, by clear and convincing evidence, establish that the writings in question were executed under mutual mistake or unilateral mistake coupled with fraud. *(Chimart Assocs. v Paul,*66 NY2d 570.)

The record substantiates the Referee’s findings *(see, Clean Rental Servs. v Karten,*146 AD2d 462, 464) that claimant failed to establish that the three annual Union-issued insurance policies, limiting bodily injury insurance coverage to an aggregate limit of $500,000 instead of $500,000 per occurrence, as supposedly intended by claimant, were at variance with the intention of both parties *(Chimart Assocs. v Paul, supra,*at 573) or the product of fraudulent misrepresentation on the *399part of Union. The policies in question and the endorsement contained therein clearly spelled out the coverage limits and unmistakably cautioned the insured on its first page to read the document carefully so as to bring promptly to Union’s attention any potential mistakes. During the three years of coverage, when two renewals were executed, claimant failed to raise any objection about the policy coverage limitation with Union or any of its insurance agents. Under these circumstances, evidence of "a very high order” *(Backer Mgt. Corp. v Acme Quilting Co., supra,*at 219) was lacking and the denial of reformation was proper.

We have considered claimant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P. Milonas, Kassal, Wallach and Smith, JJ.
NO. 07-05-0340-CV

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL A

	DECEMBER 16, 2005

	______________________________

	KERWIN GIBBS, APPELLANT

	V.

	ALLSUP’S CONVENIENCE STORES, INC. AND

	FEDERATED MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,

	FEDERATED INSURANCE AN ASSUMED NAME

	OF FEDERATED 	MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

	AND/OR FEDERATED 	SERVICES INSURANCE COMPANY

	 AND DAWN WILLEFORD, APPELLEES

	_________________________________

	FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 3 OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;

	NO. 2005-597,010; HONORABLE PAULA LANEHART, JUDGE

	_______________________________

Before REAVIS and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

	MEMORANDUM OPINION

	Appellant, Kerwin Gibbs, filed a notice of appeal from an Order entered on June 24, 2005.  The clerk’s record was filed on October 21, 2005 and the reporter’s record has not been requested per the docketing statement filed by appellant.  By letter dated November 29, 2005,  the clerk of this court notified counsel for appellant that appellant’s brief was due November 21, 2005, but had yet to be filed.  See Tex. R. App. P. 38.6(a).  The letter further advised appellant that the appeal would be subject to dismissal for want of prosecution if the brief, or a response reasonably explaining the failure to file a brief with a showing that appellee had not been injured by the delay, was not filed by December 9, 2005.  No brief, motion for extension or other response has been received.

	Accordingly, we now dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution and failure to comply with a directive of the court.  See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1) and 42.3(b), (c).    

						Mackey K. Hancock

						        Justice
Exhibit 31.2**Certification**I, Gregory A. White, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Rockville Financial, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect tothe period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report, based on suchevaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.     May 15, 2006 /s/ Mr. Gregory A. White         Mr. Gregory A. White    Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer  
36
#### Patricia DRURY, n/k/a Patricia Thornton, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Kem A. DRURY, Defendant/Appellant.

No. 64436.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.

May 31, 1994.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied June 30, 1994.

Clifford Schwartz, Schwartz & Ochs, St. Louis, for appellant.

Patricia A. Riehl, Hollingsworth & Riehl, Hillsboro, for respondent.

Before GRIMM, P.J., and CARL R. GAERTNER and AHRENS, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Father appeals from a modification order which increased the amount he pays for child support.

An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

*479The judgment is affirmed in accordance ■with Rule 84.16(b).
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. ss.1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Solely for the purposes of complying with, and the extent required by 18 U.S.C. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned certifies, in his capacity as the Chief Executive Officer of BlastGard International, Inc., that, to his knowledge, the amended Annual Report of the company on Form
10-KSB/A-1 for the period ended December 31, 2004, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
companys financial condition and results of operations.



July 13, 2005



|                                        
|----------------------------------------
|/s/ James F. Gordon                     
|James F. Gordon, Chief Executive Officer
### NUMBER 13

- 10

- 00 646

- CV



## COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

- EDINBURG

JESUS D. CANTU

, Appellant,

v.

FRED G. ESQUIVEL, II

, Appellee

.

On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5

of Hidalgo County, Texas.



## MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Perkes

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

This case is before the Court on a joint motion to dismiss the appeal pursuant to

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)( 2)(B). The parties have reached an

agreement with regard to the disposition of the matters currently on appeal. Pursuant to

agreement, the parties request this Court to set aside the trial court = s judgment without2

regards to the merits, and remand this c ase to the trial court for rendition of a judgment in

accordance with the agreement of the parties.

The Court has considered the motion and it is the Court = s opinion that the motion

should be granted in part and denied in part. 1 The joint motion to set aside and remand

is GRANTED. Accordingly, we set aside the trial court = s judgment without regard to the

merits, and REMAND this case to the trial court for rendition of judgment in accordance

with the parties = agreement. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.1(a)(2)(B)

.

Costs will be taxed against appellant. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.1(d) ("Absent

agreement of the parties, the court will tax costs against the appellant.").

PER CURIAM

D elivered and filed the

10th day of March , 20 11

.

1 Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a) permits the appellate court to dispose of an appeal in accordance with an agreement signed by the parties or their attorneys and filed with the clerk. See T EX

. R.

A PP

. P . 42.1(a). This joint motion requests dismi ssal of the appeal and remand for entry of further orders by the trial court in accordance with the settlement. While this Court may dismiss an appeal pursuant to an agreement by the parties, we are not permitted to dismiss and remand for further proceedi ngs. See i d., 42.1(a)(2)(B).
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 81 (Thursday, April 25, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 18419]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10202]



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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
[TA-W-32,116]


Galey & Lord Society Hill, South Carolina; Notice of Termination 
of Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation 
was initiated on April 1, 1996 in response to a worker petition which 
was filed on behalf of workers and former workers at Galey & Lord, 
located in Society Hill, South Carolina (TA-W-32,116).
    The Department of Labor has not been able to verify the information 
provided on the petition with a contact person at the subject firm. 
Consequently, the Department of Labor cannot conduct an investigation 
to make a determination as to whether the workers are eligible for 
adjustment assistance benefits under the Trade Act of 1974.
    Therefore, further investigation in this matter would serve no 
purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed at Washington, DC this 3rd day of April 1996.
Russell T. Kile,
Acting Program Manager, Policy and Reemployment Services, Office of 
Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 96-10202 Filed 4-24-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 81 (Thursday, April 25, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 18250]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10279]



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


DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
31 CFR Part 103

RIN 1506-AA17


Amendment to the Bank Secrecy Act Regulations Relating to Orders 
for Transmittals of Funds by Financial Institutions; Correction

AGENCY: Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, Treasury.

ACTION: Correction to final regulations.

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

SUMMARY: This document contains corrections to the final rule amending 
the Bank Secrecy Act regulations relating to orders for transmittals of 
funds by financial institutions, which was published Monday, April 1, 
1996 (61 FR 14386).

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 28, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles D. Klingman, Office of 
Financial Institutions Policy, at (703) 905-3920, or Joseph M. Myers, 
Office of Legal Counsel, (703) 905-3590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The final regulations that are the subject of these corrections 
amend the Bank Secrecy Act regulations relating to orders for 
transmittals of funds by financial institutions.

Need for Correction

    As published, the final regulations contain errors which may prove 
to be misleading and are in need of clarification.

Correction of Publication

    Accordingly, the publication on April 1, 1996 of the final 
regulations, which were the subject of FR Doc. 96-7682, is corrected as 
follows:


Sec. 103.33  [Corrected]

    1. On page 14388, in the third column, in Sec. 103.33, paragraph 
(g)(3) introductory text, line 7, the language ``transfer system by a 
financial institution'' is corrected to read ``transfer system or 
otherwise by a financial institution''.
    2. On page 14388, in the third column, in Sec. 103.33, paragraph 
(g)(3) introductory text, line 9, the language ``the Federal Reserve 
Bank completes its'' is corrected to read ``the Federal Reserve Bank or 
otherwise, completes its''.

    Dated: April 22, 1996.
Anna Fotias,
Alternate Federal Register Liaison Officer, Financial Crimes 
Enforcement Network.
[FR Doc. 96-10279 Filed 4-24-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4820-03-P