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

                  CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
                        ACTING CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF
                                AVRO ENERGY INC.
          FORM 10-Q FOR THE NINE MONTH PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2010
                 PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Mike P. Kurtanjek, am the Chief Executive Officer and acting Chief Financial
Officer of Avro Energy Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"). I am
delivering this certificate in connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
of the Company for the nine month period ended September 30, 2010 and filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission ("Quarterly Report").

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge,
the Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information
contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Date: November 19, 2010               By: /s/ Mike P. Kurtanjek
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Mike P. Kurtanjek
                                          Chief Executive Officer, President,
                                          acting Chief Financial Officer, acting
                                          Principal Accounting Officer and
                                          Director
**Exhibit
32.2**
 
 **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 Largo Vista Group, Ltd (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), the undersigned, Albert
Figueroa, Secretary/Treasurer of the Company, certifies to the best of his
knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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.
 
 Date:
April 15, 2005
 
 /s/
Albert Figueroa
 ---------------------------------------------
 Albert
Figueroa, Principal Accounting Officer
 
 This
certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

October 24, 2011 

d1017 

Order 

 

October 24, 2011 

142845(17) 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 142845 

 COA: 302278 

LAWRENCE PARKER, Saginaw CC: 09-032202-FH 

Defendant-Appellant. 10-033937-FH 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s June 28, 2011 

order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously.
Exhibit 32.1

DSP GROUP, INC.

CERTIFICATION

In connection with the annual report of DSP Group,
Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Ofer Elyakim, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of
the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:



| | (1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for
the periods indicated.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

This Certification has not been,
and shall not be deemed, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Date: March 16, 2011

/s/ Ofer ElyakimOfer Elyakim Chief
Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 10.1


 


Amendment No. 8


 


to


 


Employment Agreement of David Schaeffer


 


This amendment is made by and between Cogent Communications, Inc.
(the “Company”) and David Schaeffer (“Executive”).  It amends the employment agreement between the
parties dated February 7, 2000 as amended.


 


The second and third sentences of section 2 are replaced with
the following:


 


The term of employment under this Agreement (the “Term”)
shall be for the period beginning on the Effective Date and ending on December 31, 2024, unless earlier terminated as provided
in Section 6. 


 


Section 5(b) Bonus is replaced with the following:


 


Executive shall be entitled to a bonus based on growth
in revenue and EBITDA, as adjusted (as defined in the company’s earnings releases), of Cogent Communications Holdings, Inc.
in 2020-2024 compared in each case to the prior year. The bonus, if any, shall be calculated each year following filing of the
company’s annual audited financial statements on Form 10-K, e.g. the bonus, if any, to be paid in February 2021 is based
on 2020 results compared to 2019. The bonus target shall be allocated equally between the company’s revenue growth rate and
EBITDA, as adjusted, growth rate, with the target percentages to be determined by the Compensation Committee of the company’s
Board of Directors. If the growth of the performance measure is less than the amount set by the Committee, the bonus shall be reduced
such that it is proportional to performance realized, e.g. if revenue growth is 7.5% and the target is 10%, then the bonus for
revenue growth will be $187,500. If the performance measure is zero or negative, the bonus for that performance measure shall be
zero.


 


Except as herein amended the Employment Agreement shall remain
in full force and effect.


 


Accepted and Agreed to:


 


	 	 	Cogent Communications, Inc.
	 	 	 	 
	/s/ David Schaeffer	 	by:	 /s/ John Chang
	David Schaeffer	 	 	John Chang
	In his individual capacity	 	 	Chief Legal Officer and VP
	 	 	 	Cogent Communications, Inc. on behalf of the board of directors
	 	 	 	 
	Date: February 14, 2020	 	 	Date: February 14, 2020
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

					NO.  2-09-402-CR

HILLARY ANN HOLLAND							APPELLANT

	V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS	STATE

	----------

	FROM COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT NO. 9 OF TARRANT COUNTY

	----------

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

	----------

	We have considered the appellant's “Motion To Dismiss.”  The motion complies with rule 42.2(a) of the rules of appellate procedure. Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a).  No decision of this court having been delivered before we received this motion, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See id.; Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f). 

								PER CURIAM

PANEL: DAUPHINOT, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: January 21, 2010
trtc_ex104.htm

EXHIBIT 10.4
 
STOCK FORFEITURE
 
February 14, 2020
 
The undersigned holder of options of Terra Tech Corp., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”) is the holder of 275,000 non-qualified stock options to purchase shares of common stock of the Company, which such stock options may be vested or unvested as of the date hereof (“Company Options”). The undersigned desires to forfeit and have the Company cancel the Company Options (the “Forfeited Options”) effective as of the date set forth above (the “Effective Date”).
 
NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned represents, warrants and agrees as follows:
 
	1.	On the Effective Date, the Forfeited Options shall be cancelled and retired by the Company and shall be of no further force or effect, and the undersigned agrees that no payment by the Company to the undersigned shall be made with respect thereto.
	 
	 

	2.	The undersigned hereby acknowledges that the Company will cancel the Forfeited Options on the books and records of the Company.
	 
	 

	3.	The undersigned represents and warrants to the Company that the undersigned holds good and valid title to the Forfeited Options, free and clear of all liens, encumbrances, pledges, interests, and adverse claims whatsoever.


 
[Signature page follows]
 


	 
	1

	
 
	 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has hereunto set his hand and seal as of the date first set forth above.
 
	 
	 By:
	/s/ Michael Nahass 
	 

	 
	 
	Michael Nahass
	 


 
 

	Accepted and Acknowledged:
	 

	 
	 

	TERRA TECH CORP.
	
	 	 	 
	By:	/s/ Derek Peterson 
	
	Name: 
	Derek Peterson
	 
	Title: 	CEO
	 

  [Signature Page to Stock Forfeiture Agreement]

  
	 
	2
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 657 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  1st Session

                               H. R. 657

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

  To extend the deadline under the Federal Power Act applicable to the 
 construction of three hydroelectric projects in the State of Arkansas.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 657

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To extend the deadline under the Federal Power Act applicable to the 
 construction of three hydroelectric projects in the State of Arkansas.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF DEADLINES.

    Notwithstanding the time limitations of section 13 of the Federal 
Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806) the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 
upon the request of the licensee for FERC Project No. 4204, 4660, and 
4659 (and after reasonable notice), is authorized, in accordance with 
the good faith, due diligence, and public interest requirements of such 
section 13 and the Commission's procedures under such section, to 
extend the time required for commencement of construction for the 
project for up to a maximum of 3 consecutive 2-year periods. This 
section shall take effect for the project upon the expiration of the 
extension (issued by the Commission under such section 13) of the 
period required for commencement of construction of such project.

            Passed the House of Representatives November 13, 1995.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
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 on Form 10-Q (the Report) of Acceptance Insurance Companies Inc. (the Company) for the six months ended June 30, 2004, I, John E. Martin, President and Chief Executive Officer
of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge that:



| | (1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; provided, however, that the Company did not obtain a review of the
unaudited interim financial statements in the Report by an independent registered public accounting firm as indicated in Part I, Item 1 of the Report; and
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                            
|--------------------------------------------
|/s/ John E. Martin                          
|John E. Martin                              
|Title: President and Chief Executive Officer
|                                            
|Acceptance Insurance Companies Inc.         
|                                            
|Date: August 10, 2004
Exhibit 10.3 Compensation Agreement dated February 3, 2020 between American Battery Metals Corporation and John C. Lukrich


 

Exhibit 10.3

 

COMPENSATION AGREEMENT

 

This Compensation Agreement is made to be effective from February 3, 2020 by and between John C. Lukrich (“Consultant”) and American Battery Metals Corporation (the “Company”) (together, Consultant and the Company are each a “Party” and collectively, the “Parties”), who agree as follows:

 

1.Compensation. As partial compensation for management services rendered to the Company for the calendar year ending December 31, 2020, the Company agrees to issue Consultant the sum of two million (2,000,000) shares of the Company’s common stock (the “Compensation Shares”). 

 

2.Registration. As soon as reasonably practicable after the full execution of this Agreement, the Company intends to file a Registration Statements on Form S-8 with the Securities and Exchange Commission registering the Compensation Shares to permit the public sale by the Consultant. 

 

3.Restricted Services. The Parties agree that none of the services previously provided or to be provided in exchange for the Compensation Shares are in connection with any capital raising transaction or with directly or indirectly promoting or maintaining a market for the securities of the Company. To the extent that Consultant has or will provide any of such services, he shall be compensated from other sources other than the Compensation Shares.  

 

4.Board Approval. This Agreement was approved by the Board of Consultants of American Battery Metals Corporation on February 3, 2020. 

 

6.Governing Law; Venue. This Agreement shall be constructed and interpreted in accordance with and governed by the laws of the State of Nevada. The Parties agree to submit to the jurisdiction of the Federal and State Courts in Washoe County, Nevada for the resolution of all legal disputes arising under the terms of this Agreement. 

 

7.Severability. Should any provision of this Agreement be declared or determined to be invalid or illegal, the validity of the remaining parts, terms or provisions shall not be affected thereby, and the illegal or invalid part, term or provision shall be deemed not to be a part of this Agreement. 

 

8.Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Compensation Agreement to be duly executed by each Party’s authorized officer as of the Effective Date.

 

	“COMPANY”

	 

	“CONSULTANT”:


	American Battery Metals Corporation,

a Nevada corporation

	 

	 


	 

	 

	 


	By: 

	/s/ Douglas Cole

	 

	By:

	s/ John C. Lukrich


	Name:

	Douglas Cole

	 

	Name: 

	John C. Lukrich


	Title:

	Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23





                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT





We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
33-91368 of RTW, Inc. on form S-8/S-3, Registration Statement No. 33-91372 of
RTW, Inc. on Form S-8, Registration Statement No. 33-98966 of RTW, Inc. on Form
S-8, and Registration Statement No. 333-28585 of RTW, Inc. on Form S-8 of our
reports dated March 25, 2003 appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of
RTW, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2001.




/s/  ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Minneapolis, Minnesota
March 26, 2003
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas

September 1, 2021

No. 04

- 21

- 00028

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF N.M.B., A CHILD,

From the 438th Judicial District Cou rt
, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016

- EM5

- 06049 Honorable Antonia Arteaga , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

On August 16, 2021, we ordered Appellant Channel Beverly to file written proof that she had designated, in writing, the portions of the proceedings she desired court reporter Mary M. Wilson to include in the reporter’s record and that she provided written proof that she had paid or made arrangements to pay the court reporter’s fee for preparing the reporter’s record. On August 26, 2021, Appellant Channel Beverly filed written proof that she had done both. We therefore ORDER court reporter May M. Wilson to f ile the reporter’s record on or before Oc tober 1, 2021

.

_________________________________ Liz a A. Rodriguez , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 1st day of September, 2021

.

________________________________ ___ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
#### George Fenley v. State.

No. 25295.

May 16, 1951.

Hon. E. E. Jordan, Judge Presiding.

No attorney for appellant of record on appeal.

*George P. Blackburn,*State’s Attorney, Austin, for the state.

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is the unlawful sale of liquor without a permit; the punishment, a fine of $100 and thirty days’ confinement in jail.

Appellant was a porter at the Roosevelt Hotel in Amarillo. An agent of the Texas Liquor Control Board purchased a half pint of whiskey from him. Appellant did not testify.

Bill of Exception No. 1 complains of the failure of the trial court to instruct a verdict of not guilty on the grounds that the. state failed to prove that appellant did not have a permit to sell whiskey on the day charged in the complaint. The supervisor of the Texas Liquor Control Board for the area was asked to examine his records and tell the jury whether the appellant had a permit on the day charged. His answer was that appellant does not have a permit. We feel that since question was specific as to the date even though the answer was in the present tense, it was in reply to the question fixing the date and was, therefore, sufficient.

Bill of Exception No. 2 complains of the reading to the jury of a portion of the testimony of one Dudley who had testified *113against appellant in a former trial. We feel that appellant waived any complaint he may have had to this testimony when he made an issue of what Dudley’s testimony had been on the former trial. Since the issue was raised by appellant, the best evidence was the stenographer’s notes taken at the former trial.

Finding no reversible error, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
<TABLE>

<CAPTION>


EXHIBIT 11
                        Computation of Earnings Per Share



                                                              Twelve Months Ended
                                                                  September 30,
                                                        2001                     2000
                                                  -----------------        -----------------
<S>                                               <C>                      <C>


Shares Outstanding Beginning of Period                   4,230,361                4,230,361

Shares Issued During Period:                                     -                        -


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

Total Outstanding                                        4,230,361                4,230,361

Weighted average number of shares outstanding            4,230,361                4,181,348

Shares deemed outstanding from assumed
exercise of stock options                                        -                        -
                                                  -----------------        -----------------

Total                                                    4,230,361                4,181,348
                                                  =================        =================

Earnings (loss) applicable to common shares       $     (2,115,003)        $     (2,378,488)
                                                  =================        =================

Earnings (loss) per share of common stock         $         (0.500)
                                                  =================        =================

</TABLE>
#### Elizabeth Hamilton, *et al.,*Pltffs in Error, *v.*Winthrop C. Gilman, *et al.*Defts in Error.

ERROR TO SANGAMON.

A decree cannot be entered against infants, without proof to sustain the case.

This was a bill against parties, some of whom were infants. No proof was taken in support of the bill.

Caton, J.

This record does not show that any evidence was before the Court, to-sustain the case made in the bill. Without such proof, no decree could be entered, especially as against the infant, Defendant.

The decree is reversed, and the suit remanded, with leave to the Complainants, -to amend their bill.

*Decree reversed.*