alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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
 
 
 In
        connection with the Quarterly Report of Gulf United Energy, Inc. (the “Company”)
        on Form 10-QSB for the period ended February 28, 2006 as filed with the
        Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the
        undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
        certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
        906
        of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his 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.
 
 
 Date:
        April 14, 2006
 
 
 /s/
        Bryan
        McKay
 
 Bryan
        McKay, President and C.E.O.
 (Principal
        Executive Officer)
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5889 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 5889

 To amend the Hermit's Peak/Calf Canyon Fire Assistance Act to extend 
 the time period for the submission of claims, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 3, 2023

           Ms. Leger Fernandez introduced the following bill

                            October 25, 2023

  Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the 
  Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period to be 
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration 
  of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 
                               concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Hermit's Peak/Calf Canyon Fire Assistance Act to extend 
 the time period for the submission of claims, 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 ``Hermit's Peak/Calf Canyon Claims 
Extension Act''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS.

    Section 104 of the Hermit's Peak/Calf Canyon Fire Assistance Act 
(Public Law 117-180; 136 Stat. 2170) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(5) Temporary personnel.--
                    ``(A) In general.--The Administrator may appoint 
                temporary personnel, after serving the Office 
                continuously for 3 years, to positions in the Federal 
                Emergency Management Agency in the same manner that 
                competitive service employees with competitive status 
                are considered for transfer, reassignment, or promotion 
                to such positions.
                    ``(B) Career-conditional employee.--An individual 
                appointed under subparagraph (A) shall become a career-
                conditional employee, unless the employee has already 
                completed the service requirements for career 
                tenure.'';
            (2) in subsection (b) by striking ``Not later than 2 years 
        after the date on which regulations are first promulgated under 
        subsection (f)'' and inserting ``Not later than December 31, 
        2027'';
            (3) in subsection (d)(4)(C)(vii) by striking ``the date 
        that is 3 years after the date on which the regulations under 
        subsection (f) are first promulgated'' and inserting ``December 
        31, 2028,''; and
            (4) in subsection (d)(4)(C)(viii) by striking ``May 31, 
        2024'' and inserting ``December 31, 2028''.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

I, Patrick A. Galliher, President of RMD Technologies, Inc., certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of RMD Technologies, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;

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

4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the small business issuer and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) disclosed in this report any changes in the small business issuer’s  internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’s  internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting.

Dated:  January 22, 2008 By: /s/ Patrick A. Galliher

Patrick A. Galliher

President
#### Douglas R. HICKS, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 68652.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

May 7, 1996.

Dave Hemingway, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for Appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, Becky Owenson Kilpatrick, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, for Respondent.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and KAROHL and GRIMM, JJ.

*158
      *ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Douglas R. Hicks appeals dismissal of his Rule 24.035 motion. On November 23, 1993, movant was delivered to the Missouri Department of Corrections to serve a seven year sentence for delivery of a controlled substance, § 195.211 RSMo Cum.Supp.1989. On February 27, 1995, movant filed a pro se Rule 24.035 motion.

The motion court dismissed the motion as untimely under Rule 24.035(b). The rule allows ninety days after delivery to the custody of the Department of Corrections to file a motion for post conviction relief. Dismissal of the late filed motion was mandatory. “The time limitations contained in *Rules 21.035 and 29.15*are valid and mandatory.” *Day v. State,*770 S.W.2d 692, 695 (Mo. banc 1989). The dismissal is affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001103718
<NAME>                        ELVA, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Currency

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jan-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   Dec-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         97,476
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  98,209
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               195,685
<PP&E>                                         72,036
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (28,843)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 635,964
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          305,384
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       2,150
<OTHER-SE>                                     (379,292)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   635,964
<SALES>                                        448,696
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               448,696
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               1,390,890
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (14,586)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (944,787)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   220,939
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (723,712)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0



</TABLE>
#### Craig A. FISSELL, Petitioner/Respondent, v. Donna A. FISSELL, Respondent/Appellant.

No. 67242.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Oct. 10, 1995.

Elaine C. Bachman, Snyder, Wier, Shaller and Bachman, Clayton, for appellant.

Michael B. Stern, Stem, Frapolli & Ahl-quist, St. Louis, for respondent.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and KAROHL and WHITE, JJ.

*384
      *ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Mother appeals from the trial court’s judgment adopting the Commissioner’s recommendation to grant custody of two minor children to father. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the trial court are not clearly erroneous, and an extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
#### NCNB NATIONAL BANK OF TEXAS and Richard Logan, Appellants, v. C.E. ERWIN, Sr., By and Through Mrs. C.W. ERWIN, et al., Appellees.

No. 13-89-041-CV.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Corpus Christi.

March 30, 1989.

Barry McClenahan, Richard A. Sparr, Jr., John Clark Long, IV, San Antonio, for appellants.

Douglass D. Heame, Brian W. Bishop, Austin, William F. Seerden, Cullen, Cars-ner, Seerden & Cullen, Victoria, for appel-lees.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order granting a temporary injunction. The transcript in the above cause was received in this Court on January 27, 1989. Upon inspection of the transcript, it appeared that the appeal was not properly perfected since no cost bond, cash deposit, or affidavit in lieu thereof was filed as required by Tex.R. App.P. 40(a).

On January 27, 1989, pursuant to Tex.R. App.P. 56(a) and 60(a)(2), appellants’ attorney was given notice of the above defect so that steps could be taken to correct the defect, if it could be done. Appellants’ attorney was further advised that if after the expiration of ten days the defect was not cured, the appeal would be dismissed. On February 10,1989, this Court received a supplemental transcript in the above cause. Upon inspection of the supplemental transcript, it appeared that a cash deposit had been tendered to the district clerk, however, the certificate as to cash in lieu of bond showed that the deposit had not been timely filed as required by Tex.R.App.P. 42(a)(3).

On February 24, 1989, appellants’ attorney was given notice of this defect so that steps could be taken to cure the defect, if it could be done. Appellants’ attorney was further advised that if after the expiration of ten days the defect was not cured, the appeal would be dismissed.

In response to this Court’s notice, on March 6,1988, the appellants filed a motion for leave to file cash deposit in lieu of bond. However, Tex.R.App.P. 42 makes no provision for an extension of time to perfect the appeal in an accelerated appeal. *St. Louis Federal Savings & Loan Assoc, v. Summerhouse Joint Venture,*739 S.W.2d 441, 442 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1987, no writ).

Accordingly, having considered that appellants’ cash deposit in lieu of bond was not timely filed, this Court is of the opinion *656that appellants’ motion for leave to file the cash deposit in lieu of bond should be denied, the remaining motions should be dismissed, and the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Accordingly, appellants’ motions are denied and the appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION.
EXHIBIT 10.12

CONFIDENTIAL

TELEFAX                                           ORGANIC POWER

To: Ocean Power                  From:   Ole Wiborg
Attn: Nr. Joseph P. Maceda       Pages:
Fax:  00 1 (916) 933-8177        Date:  20. December 2000
Project:

Subject: Memorandum of Understanding

While  we  appreciate  your  'no  nonsense',  direct  approach  to form a common
memorandum of  understanding  we  nevertheless  feel it being  appropriate to be
slightly  room  specific  with  regard to item 2 in your  fax.  (Item 1 and 3 we
register and have no  comments).  A due  diligence  process costs both money and
time  for  us  both  so  let  us  be  certain  we  have  a  sufficiently  common
understanding of our goals.

Our initial idea  suggests that Ocean power offer to purchase - say - 10% to 20%
of outstanding Organic Power stock from existing  shareholders.  Valuation to be
agreed.

Then Organic Power ASA will issue stock to Ocean Power up to an amount that will
increase  Ocean  Powers  total  interest  in  Organic  Power  to  50%  of  total
outstanding stock [

As a third step,  shareholders of the remaining 50% of Organic Power stock (that
Ocean Power does not hold) will have an option  (within a agreed  timeframe)  to
convert  their  remaining  Organic Power stock into Ocean Power stock at a fixed
price.  The reason  behind this is that while a  full-blown  merger in many ways
make sense,  we in Organic power are now  experiencing  a major brake through in
the marketplace with several  reference  installations  in place,  while we feel
Ocean  Power will  remain in a  technological  development  stage for still some
time. The marketing process does after all represent a significant risk factor.

In addition,  we believe a number of our smaller  shareholders  and shareholding
employees  will welcome a  possibility  (option) to convert  their Organic Power
stock into a liquid (and Nasdaq quoted) Ocean Power stock as soon as they get to
know your company and you as management a bit better.

Our Board of  Directors  is not  prepared to move on for a full blown  merger at
this  stage.  A 50%  ownership  interest  by Ocean  Power will be hard enough to
negotiate.  As such, we believe the above (rough) model has a reasonable  chance
to succeed.

A formal  decision  on a  transaction  as  outlined  above  will be  subject  to
acceptance by a general shareholders meeting in Organic Power AS&

Sincerely yours Organic Power ASA, Oslo

By: /s/ Ole C. Wiborg
---------------------
        Ole C. Wiborg

<PAGE>
1The Hon. Michael J. Melloy, United States District Judge for the Northern

District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 99-1383NI

_____________

United States of America, *

 * On Appeal from the United

Appellee, * States District Court

 * for the Northern District

v. * of Iowa.

 *

Martin Becerra, * [Not To Be Published]

 *

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: February 17, 2000

 Filed: February 28, 2000

___________

Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, BOWMAN, and BEAM, Circuit Judges. 

___________

PER CURIAM.

Martin Becerra appeals from the final judgment entered in the District Court1

upon his guilty plea to distribution and aiding and abetting the distribution of

methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). The District Court sentenced

Becerra to four years and nine months imprisonment and four years supervised release.

For reversal, Becerra argues the District Court clearly erred in denying him an
-2-

adjustment for his role in the offense, especially when a co-defendant received a fourlevel minimal-role reduction.

Becerra was not entitled to a mitigating-role reduction merely because his codefendant received one. See United States v. Jones, 145 F.3d 959, 963 (8th Cir. 1998),

cert. denied, 119 S. Ct. 457 (1998). According to the uncontested factual allegations

contained in his presentence report, Becerra’s wife had arranged a drug transaction; he

accompanied her to a meeting place with knowledge that the activity was somehow

drug-related; and, in response to his wife’s signal, he had a brief discussion with a codefendant shortly before the co-defendant placed methamphetamine in an undercover

vehicle. We conclude the District Court did not clearly err in finding that Becerra was

“fully involved” in this transaction and in denying Becerra’s request for a mitigatingrole reduction. See Jones, 145 F.3d at 963; United States v. McGrady, 97 F.3d 1042,

1042-43 (8th Cir. 1996). 

Accordingly, we affirm.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-30222

Summary Calendar

 

LLOYD BALLIVIERO,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

GORDON K. KONRAD; LANA WERNER KONRAD; 

SHAWN M. KONRAD; BELLE CHASSE MARINE

TRANSPORTATION, INC.,

Defendants-Appellants.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 01-CV-2014-K

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

January 7, 2003

Before DAVIS, WIENER, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Gordon K. Konrad, Lana Werner Konrad, Shawn M. Konrad, and

Belle Chasse Marine Transportation, Inc., appeal the order 

dismissing pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(A) Lloyd

Balliviero’s action without prejudice due to misrepresentations

on his in forma pauperis affidavit. They argue that the

dismissal should have been with prejudice. 
No. 02-30222

-2-

After a hearing, the district court determined that the

circumstances of Balliviero’s misrepresentations warranted a

dismissal without prejudice. The defendants have not shown that

the district court abused its discretion. See, e.g., Lay v.

Justices-Middle Dist. Court, 811 F.2d 285, 286 (5th Cir. 1987). 

AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 88 (Monday, May 6, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 20251]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11296]



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

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION


Sunshine Act Meeting

    Pursuant to the provisions of the ``Government in the Sunshine 
Act'' (5 U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that at 3:33 p.m. on 
Tuesday, April 30, 1996, the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit 
Insurance Corporation met in closed session to consider matters 
relating to the Corporation's supervisory activities.
    In calling the meeting, the Board determined, on motion of Vice 
Chairman Andrew C. Hove, Jr., seconded by Director Joseph H. Neely 
(Appointive), concurred in by Director Eugene A. Ludwig (Comptroller of 
the Currency), Director Jonathan L. Fiechter (Acting Director, Office 
of Thrift Supervision), and Chairman Ricki Helfer, that Corporation 
business required its consideration of the matters on less than seven 
days' notice to the public; that no earlier notice of the meeting was 
practicable; that the public interest did not require consideration of 
the matters in a meeting open to public observation; and that the 
matters could be considered in a closed meeting by authority of 
subsections (c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8), (c)(9)(A)(ii) of the ``Government 
in the Sunshine Act'' (5 U.S.C. 552b (c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8), and 
(c)(9)(A)(ii)).
    The meeting was held in the Board Room of the FDIC Building located 
at 550--17th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

    Dated: May 1, 1996.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
Valerie J. Best,
Assistant Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-11296 Filed 5-2-96; 2:09 pm]
BILLING CODE 6714-01-M
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



In connection with the annual report (the
“Report”) of Spare Backup, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Cery B. Perle, Chief Executive Officer and principal financial
and accounting 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, that to 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.
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|Date: April 22, 2013 | By: /s/ Cery B. Perle                                                                                                                                          
|-------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                     | Cery B. Perle
        President, Chief Executive Officer and Director
        (Principal executive officer, principal financial
        and accounting officer)