alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**
**Exhibit 13.1**

**Certification by the Principal Executive Officer**

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

In connection with the Annual Report of MOGU Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F forthe fiscal year ended March 31, 2019 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 28, 2019, as amended by this amendment thereto (the “Report”), I, Qi Chen, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, herebycertify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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 ofoperations of the Company. 

 
Date: July 3, 2019By: 
/s/ Qi Chen
Name: Qi ChenTitle: Chief Executive Officer**
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1236 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1236

To amend the Tariff Suspension and Trade Act of 2000 to provide for the 
 permanent designation of the San Antonio International Airport as an 
airport at which certain private aircraft arriving in the United States 
                        may land for processing.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 27, 2001

 Mr. Gonzalez introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Tariff Suspension and Trade Act of 2000 to provide for the 
 permanent designation of the San Antonio International Airport as an 
airport at which certain private aircraft arriving in the United States 
                        may land for processing.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF SAN ANTONIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT FOR CUSTOMS 
              PROCESSING OF CERTAIN PRIVATE AIRCRAFT ARRIVING IN THE 
              UNITED STATES.

    Section 1453(a) of the Tariff Suspension and Trade Act of 2000 is 
amended by striking ``For the 2-year period beginning on the date of 
the enactment of this Act, the'' and inserting ``The''.
                                 <all>
```
Blueprint






Exhibit 10.1



Yuma Energy, Inc.



1177 West Loop South ● Suite
1825



Houston, Texas
77027



713 ● 968-7068



Fax 713 ●
968-7016


 






July 2,
2019


 


Anthony
C. Schnur


Yuma
Energy, Inc.


1177
West Loop South, Suite 1825


Houston,
Texas 77027


 



Re:           

Amendment to Terms
of Employment






 


Dear
Mr. Schnur:


 


This
letter is to confirm our understanding that as Chief Restructuring
Officer (“CRO”) of Yuma Energy, Inc.
(“Yuma” and collectively with its subsidiaries, the
“Company”) you will be entitled to an annual salary of
Two Hundred Forty Thousand Dollars ($240,000) (the “Base
Salary”) plus a cash bonus of Twenty-Five percent (25%) of
the Base Salary (the “Bonus”). Payment of the Base
Salary will be made in accordance with normal payroll practices of
the Company. Payment of the Bonus will be paid in three
installments of 5%, 10% and 10%, at the end of four, eight and ten
months from the date of your initial appointment as CRO,
respectively, subject to Yuma’s liquidity. The Board of
Directors of Yuma (“Board”) has approved the initial
payment of $12,000, to be paid at your discretion subject to the
Company’s operating liquidity or otherwise reflected as an
account payable in the Company’s books and
records.


 


Your
employment as CRO of Yuma is “at will,” which means
that either Yuma has the right to terminate, or you have the right
to resign your employment, with or without cause, at any time, as
long as a reasonable two-week notice is provided by either
party.


 


You
will be entitled to a termination bonus in the amount of Three
Hundred Thousand Dollars ($300,000) (the “Termination
Bonus”) if (a) your employment as CRO of Yuma is terminated
by Yuma and such termination is based on a majority vote of the
Board of Yuma where a majority of the members of the Board do not
consist of some or all of Richard K. Stoneburner, James W.
Christmas and Frank A. Lodzinski, and (b) you enter into a
separation agreement and release of claims (the
“Release”) with Yuma within 28 days of your receipt of
the Release from Yuma. The payment of the Termination Bonus, if
any, shall be made as promptly as reasonably possible, but in no
event beyond sixty (60) days of the date that your employment as
CRO is terminated.


 


[Signature
Page Follows]


 




 








 






 

 


 


Sincerely,


 


 



/s/ Richard K. Stoneburner


Richard
K. Stoneburner, Chairman of the Board


 


 


Agreed
and Accepted:


 


 



/s/ Anthony C. Schnur


Anthony
C. Schnur
EXHIBIT 99.1








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 Fiscal Quarter End Report of Cash Technologies,
Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending August 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, being, Bruce Korman, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
and Edmund King, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, respectfully, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.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 result of operations of the Company.





/s/    BRUCE
KORMAN



/s/    EDMUND
KINGBruce Korman Chief
Executive Officer



Edmund King Chief
Financial Officer





Dated:  October 21, 2002
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Grand Concourse Estates LLC, Petitioner-Landlord-Respondent, -<br><br>against<br><br>Djarga Ture and Bawaka Samura, Respondents-Tenants-Appellants.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Tenants appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Fidel E. Gomez, J.), entered October 18, 2018, which granted landlord's motion for attorneys' fees in a nonpayment summary proceeding and set the matter down for a hearing to determine the reasonable amount of attorneys' fees due landlord.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Order (Fidel E. Gomez, J.), entered October 18, 2018, affirmed, with $10 costs.</p><p>Civil Court properly directed a hearing to determine the reasonable attorneys' fees incurred by landlord in this commercial nonpayment proceeding. Landlord was the prevailing party in the litigation and the governing commercial lease agreement (paragraph 19) provided for the recovery of attorneys' fees in the event of tenants' default.</p><p>Contrary to tenants' claim, there was no impermissible splitting of the landlord's cause of action for attorneys' fees. Although legal fees were not specifically requested in the nonpayment petition, the request for fees was made in the context of the same proceeding by way of a motion after a merits determination had been made (<i>see Monacelli v Farrington</i>, 240 AD2d 296 [1997]; <i>see also 815 Park Ave. Owners v Metzger</i>, 250 AD2d 471 [1998]). Tenants were also on notice that such fees would be sought, in view of the attorneys' fees provision in the commercial lease and landlord's reservation of a right to legal fees in a prior stipulation of settlement in a separate nonpayment proceeding between the parties (<i>see AD 1619 Co. v VB Mgt.</i>, 259 AD2d 382 [1999], <i>lv dismissed</i> 93 NY2d 1030 [1999]). Nor did landlord intentionally relinquish its right to an award of attorneys' fees, which arose only after the merits determination had been made (<i>see AD 1619 Co. v VB Mgt.</i>, 259 AD2d at 382). </p><p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p><br>I concur I concur I concur <br>Decision Date: April 17, 2019<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
ACCOMPANYING  FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 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>                                                 788
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        6,568
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    37,059
<PP&E>                                             144,272
<DEPRECIATION>                                      12,754
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     365,403
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               42,810
<BONDS>                                            202,322
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                               116
<OTHER-SE>                                          95,306
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       365,403
<SALES>                                             54,726
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    58,401
<CGS>                                               30,722
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       52,150
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   4,685
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      6,853
<INCOME-TAX>                                        (2,472)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  4,381
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                         4,381
<EPS-BASIC>                                           0.44
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0.41



</TABLE>
#### Maggie WATSON, Appellant, v. DARLING SHOPS OF FLORIDA, Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida. Special Division B.

Feb. 12, 1954.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Dade County; George E. Holt, Judge.

Affirmed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Petitioner

 v.

DARRYL GREGORY STEWART,

 Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 298 MAL 2015

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 19th day of August, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED.
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 Quarterly Report of Covance Inc. ("Covance") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, William E. Klitgaard, Chief Financial Officer of Covance, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

Date:
October 26, 2004

/s/WILLIAM E. KLITGAARDWilliam E. Klitgaard
Corporate Senior Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)


---



QuickLinks
#### COTTONPORT BANK v. THOMAS et al.

No. 2523.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

March 24, 1943.

M. T. Hewes, of New Roads, for appellant.

No appearance for appellees.

DORE, Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment by default. The record shows the defendants were served on November 21, 1942. The minutes show that a preliminary default was entered on November 23, 1942, and the judgment of confirmation of default was rendered and signed on December 2, 1942. It is evident that the preliminary default and the rendering of the judgment were done prematurely and that therefore the judgment is null and should be avoided.

It is ordered that the judgment appealed from is hereby annulled, reversed and set aside, and the case is hereby remanded to the lower court for further proceedings in accordance with law, the cost of this appeal to be borne by plaintiff, and all other cost to await the final determination of the case.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

BILLY TYLER,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

Defendant.

4:23CV3099

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court sua sponte for case management. Pursuant to the 

Court’s October 20, 2023, Memorandum and Order (the “October 20 Order”), the Court 

performed an initial review of Plaintiff’s complaint to determine whether summary 

dismissal was appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), and, found that it was. Filing 

No. 20 at 1. However, in lieu of dismissal the Court granted Plaintiff 30 days in which to 

file an amended complaint that clearly states a claim or claims upon which relief may be 

granted including jurisdictional allegations. Id. Plaintiff was warned that failure to file an 

amended complaint consistent with the October 20 Order would result in dismissal of his

case without prejudice and without further notice. Id. at 7.

In lieu of filing an amended complaint, on October 26, 2023, Plaintiff appealed the 

October 20 Order to the Eighth Circuit. Filing No. 21. The Eighth Circuit issued a 

judgment dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction on December 5, 2023, Filing No. 

27.

4:23-cv-03099-JFB-PRSE Doc # 28 Filed: 12/14/23 Page 1 of 2 - Page ID # 70
2

As Plaintiff’s appeal was dismissed, to progress the case the Court now sua sponte 

resets the deadlines for Plaintiff to comply with the October 20 Order. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: 

1. Plaintiff shall have until 30 days from the date of this Memorandum and 

Order to file an amended complaint that clearly states a claim or claims upon which relief 

may be granted including jurisdictional allegations as set forth in this Court’s October 20 

Order. See Filing No. 20. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint, this matter will be 

dismissed without prejudice and without further notice.

2. The Court reserves the right to conduct further review of Plaintiff’s claims 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), in the event he files an amended complaint. 

3. The Clerk’s Office is directed to terminate the prior pro se management 

deadline of “November 20, 2023: Check for amended complaint” in the October 20 Order, 

Filing No. 20, and set a pro se case management deadline in this case using the following 

text: January 16, 2024: Check for amended complaint.

Dated this 14th day of December, 2023.

BY THE COURT:

Joseph F. Bataillon

Senior United States District Court

4:23-cv-03099-JFB-PRSE Doc # 28 Filed: 12/14/23 Page 2 of 2 - Page ID # 71
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1336

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the period for

filing for a credit or refund of individual income taxes to 7 years.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 3, 2001

Mr. BAKER (for himself, Mr. UDALL of Colorado, Mr. FOLEY, Mr. VITTER,

Mrs. THURMAN, MR. TAUZIN, Mr. TANCREDO, Mr. MCCRERY, Mr.

SHOWS, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. DELAY, and Mr. HERGER) introduced the

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend

the period for filing for a credit or refund of individual

income taxes to 7 years.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Tax Refund Statute

5 of Limitation Extension Act’’.

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

7 Congress finds the following:

8 (1) Every individual taxpayer should receive a

9 credit or refund for the overpayment of Federal in-
2

•HR 1336 IH

1 come taxes if the taxpayer’s claim for a credit or re2 fund can be verified by the Internal Revenue Serv3 ice.

4 (2) In order to provide for more accurate and

5 complete individual income tax records, Congress

6 should provide an incentive to taxpayers that encour7 ages the filing of amended tax returns.

8 SEC. 3. EXTENSION OF PERIOD FOR FILING FOR CREDIT

9 OR REFUND OF INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX.

10 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (a) of section 6511 of

11 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to limitations

12 on credit or refund) is amended by adding at the end the

13 following new sentence: ‘‘For purposes of applying this

14 section with respect to tax imposed by subtitle A on an

15 individual—

16 ‘‘(1) the references to 2 years and to 3 years

17 in the first sentence, in subsection (b)(2), and in

18 paragraphs (2) and (4) of subsection (d) shall be ap19 plied by treating such references as references to 7

20 years, and

21 ‘‘(2) the references to 3-year periods in sub22 paragraphs (A) and (B) of subsection (b)(2) and in

23 paragraphs (2) and (4) of subsection (d) shall be ap24 plied by treating such references as references to the

25 7-year period from the time the return was filed.’’
3

•HR 1336 IH

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

2 subsection (a) shall apply to taxes paid for taxable years

3 ending after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) 8:00CR57

vs. )

) ORDER

CURTIS A. GRANT, )

)

Defendant. )

Defendant Curtis A. Grant appeared before the court on Monday, February 27, 2006 on a Petition

for Warrant or Summons for Offender Under Supervision [58]. The defendant was represented by

Assistant Federal Public Defender Michael F. Maloney and the United States was represented by

Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael P. Norris. Through his counsel, the defendant waived his right to a

probable cause hearing on the Report pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1(a)(1). The government moved

for detention. Through counsel, the defendant declined to present any evidence on the issue of detention

and otherwise waived a detention hearing. Since it is the defendant’s burden under 18 U.S.C. § 3143 to

establish by clear and convincing evidence that he is neither a flight risk nor a danger to the community,

the court finds the defendant has failed to carry his burden and that he should be detained pending a

dispositional hearing before Judge Bataillon.

I find that the Report alleges probable cause and that the defendant should be held to answer for

a final dispositional hearing before Judge Bataillon.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. A final dispositional hearing will be held before Judge Joseph F. Bataillon in Courtroom

No.3, Third Floor, Roman L. Hruska U.S. Courthouse, 111 South 18th Plaza, Omaha, Nebraska, on

March 10, 2006 at 9:30 a.m. Defendant must be present in person.

2 The defendant, Curtis A. Grant, is committed to the custody of the Attorney General or

his designated representative for confinement in a correctional facility;

3. The defendant shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity for private consultation with

defense counsel; and

4. Upon order of a United States court or upon request of an attorney for the government,

the person in charge of the corrections facility shall deliver defendant to the United States Marshal for the

purpose of an appearance in connection with a court proceeding.

DATED this 27th day of February, 2006.

BY THE COURT:

s/ F. A. Gossett

United States Magistrate Judge

8:00-cr-00057-JFB Doc # 62 Filed: 02/27/06 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 29
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

 FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

JORG M. RIVERA,

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D13-1618

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., 

SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO BAC 

HOME LOANS SERVICING, L.P., F/K/A 

COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS 

SERVICING, L.P.,

Appellee.

________________________________/

Opinion filed May 13, 2016

Appeal from the Circuit Court for 

Marion County,

William T. Swigert, Senior Judge.

Mark A. Skipper, of Law Office of Mark A 

Skipper, P.A., Orlando, for Appellant.

Mary J. Walter, of Liebler, Gonzalez & 

Portuondo, Miami, for Appellee.

EDWARDS, J.

While this appeal was pending before this court, the Appellant, Jorg Rivera, filed 

for bankruptcy relief. Relevant bankruptcy pleadings and orders were filed with this court, 

and we granted Appellee's, Bank of America N.A., Successor by Merger to BAC Home 

Loans Servicing, L.P., f/k/a, Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, L.P., request to take 
2

judicial notice of those documents. In the bankruptcy proceeding, Appellant admitted that 

he owed a non-contingent, undisputed mortgage debt to Appellee, and he surrendered 

the mortgaged property to Appellee. The bankruptcy court entered its order confirming 

the debt and surrender of the property. See In re Metzler, 530 B.R. 894, 900 (Bankr. M.D. 

Fla. 2015) ("In the context of Bankruptcy Code §§ 521 and 1325, the Court concludes the 

term ["surrender"] means that a debtor must relinquish secured property and make it 

available to the secured creditor by refraining from taking any overt act that impedes a 

secured creditor's ability to foreclose its interest in secured property."). Appellant's 

actions and the orders of the bankruptcy court have fully resolved this matter. 

APPEAL DISMISSED.

LAWSON, C.J. and PALMER, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 06-cr-77-01-SM

Johnell Bennett

O R D E R

Defendant Bennett’s motion to continue the final pretrial conference and

trial is granted (document 20). Trial has been rescheduled for the September 

2007 trial period. Defendant Bennett shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights

not later than May 30, 2007. On the filing of such waiver, his continuance shall

be effective. 

The Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance

outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, 18

U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that failure to grant a continuance would

unreasonably deny defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective

preparation taking into account the exercise of due diligence under the

circumstances. 

Final Pretrial Conference: August 24, 2007 at 3:00 p.m. 

Jury Selection: September 5, 2007 at 9:30 a.m.

Case 1:06-cr-00077-SM Document 22 Filed 05/21/07 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

May 21, 2007

cc: Kevin E. Sharkey, Esq.

Mark Zuckerman, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

Case 1:06-cr-00077-SM Document 22 Filed 05/21/07 Page 2 of 2