alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.6

                                 PROMISSORY NOTE

U.S. $____________________                                        March 31, 2000
                                                            Rochester, Minnesota

     FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned ("Borrower") promises to pay to the
order of PEMSTAR INC. (together with its successors and assigns hereinafter
called "Holder") on March 31, 2002 at Rochester, Minnesota, or such other place
as the Holder may designate, the principal sum of _____________________________
($____________________), together with interest thereon from the date of this
Note, until paid, at the rate of six and one-half percent (6 1/2%) per annum
compounded annually.

     If suit is brought to collect this Note, the Holder shall be entitled to
collect all reasonable costs and expenses of suit, including, but not limited
to, reasonable attorney's fees.

     Borrower may prepay this Note in whole or in part. All such payments shall
be applied first to accrued interest and then to principal.

     Presentment, notice of dishonor, and protest are hereby waived by all
makers, sureties, guarantors and endorsers hereof.

     This Note is a full recourse promissory note, but is also secured by a
Stock Pledge Agreement of even date herewith executed by Borrower and delivered
to Holder.

     THIS NOTE SHALL BE CONSTRUED UNDER AND GOVERNED BY THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF
MINNESOTA.

     AT THE OPTION OF THE HOLDER, THIS NOTE MAY BE ENFORCED IN OLMSTED COUNTY,
MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT AND BORROWER CONSENTS TO THE JURISDICTION AND VENUE OF
SUCH COURT AND WAIVES ANY ARGUMENT THAT VENUE IN SUCH FORUM IS NOT CONVENIENT.
IN THE EVENT BORROWER COMMENCES ANY ACTION IN ANOTHER JURISDICTION OR VENUE
UNDER ANY TORT OR CONTRACT THEORY ARISING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY FROM THE
RELATIONSHIP CREATED BY THIS NOTE, HOLDER AT ITS OPTION SHALL BE ENTITLED TO
HAVE THE CASE TRANSFERRED TO THE JURISDICTION AND VENUE ABOVE-DESCRIBED, OR IF
SUCH TRANSFER CANNOT BE ACCOMPLISHED UNDER APPLICABLE LAW, TO HAVE SUCH CASE
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Borrower has executed this Note as of the date first
above written.


                                        --------------------------------------
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

Certification of CEO under Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

Icertify that this periodic report containing the issuer’s financial statementsfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that informationcontained In this periodic report fairly presents in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the issuer.

 

 
|   | By:    | /s/  Keith C Robbins                |   |
|--------|--------|-------------------------------------|--------|
|   |   | Keith  C. Robbins                   |
|   |   | President,  Chief Executive Officer |
|   |   | March  16, 2006                     |

 

----
Ex. 32







CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Vivian Lam Lee Yu, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Oxford Technologies, Inc. on the Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Oxford Technologies, Inc.







|                      |  |     |  |                                                              
|--------------------- |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------
|                      |  |     |  |                                                              
|Date:  April 15, 2010 |  | By: |  | /s/ Vivian Lam Lee Yu                                        
|                      |  |     |  | Vivian Lam Lee Yu, President                                 
|                      |  |     |  | (Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 00-2966

___________ Father Flanagan's Boys Home, * * Appellant, *

* v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the District Boys Town Education Association, * of Nebraska. (an affiliate of the Nebraska State * Education Association and the * [UNPUBLISHED] National Education Association), * * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: April 19, 2001 Filed: April 26, 2001

___________ Before BOWMAN, FAGG, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Beginning in 1984, Father Flanagan's Boys Home employed Michael Mullins as anEnglish teacher. The Home did not renew Mullins's contract for the 1999-2000 school year because of poor student evaluations. The Boys Town Educational Associatio n brought a grievance and the matter was submitted to an arbitrator. The arbitrator ordered the Home to reinstate Mullins, concluding the Home violated the collective bargaining agreement because the evaluation instruments and procedures* TheHonorable Joseph F. Bataillon, United States District Judge for the District

of Nebraska. -2- usedto deny Mullins a contract were unreasonable. The Home then brought this action in district court to vacate the arbitrator's award. The district court * affirmed the award, concluding the collective bargaining agreement supported the arbitrator's finding that the Home's use of

only the student assessments to evaluate Mullins was arbitrary and capricious. On appeal, the Home argues the arbitrator disregarded specific terms of the collective bargaining agreement and devised his own brand of industrial justice. Having carefully reviewed the record, we disagree and affirm for the reasons stated in the district court's memorandum and order. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge William J. Martínez

Civil Case No. 11-cv-02724-WJM-BNB

LEE JOHNSON, and

LINDA JOHNSON

Plaintiffs,

v.

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY,

ALLSTATE FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, and

ALLSTATE INDEMNITY COMPANY

Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED MOTION TO DISMISS

This matter comes before the Court on the Parties’ Stipulated Motion for

Dismissal filed April 20, 2012 (ECF No. 37). The Court having reviewed the Motion and

being fully advised hereby ORDERS as follows:

The Parties’ Stipulated Motion for Dismissal is GRANTED. The above-captioned

matter is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Each party shall pay his/her or its own

attorney’s fees and costs.

Dated this 23rd day of April, 2012.

BY THE COURT:

_______________________

William J. Martínez 

United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02724-WJM-BNB Document 38 Filed 04/23/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

LEWIS T. BABCOCK, JUDGE

Criminal Case No. 11-cr-00420-LTB

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

1. LUIS MOY,

Defendant.

________________________________________________________________________

MINUTE ORDER

________________________________________________________________________

BY ORDER OF JUDGE LEWIS T. BABCOCK

This will confirm that pursuant to proceedings held in open court on November 28,

2011, Defendant shall file either a notice of disposition or an appropriate motion on or

before December 12, 2011.

A further status/scheduling hearing regarding Defendant Moy is set Thursday,

December 15, 2011 at 8:30 a.m. in Courtroom C401, Byron G. Rogers United States

Courthouse, 1929 Stout Street, Denver, Colorado. Defendant must be present.

Government Counsel in Washington, D.C. may appear by telephone if the December

15, 2011 date remains a status hearing; however, if Defendant has filed a notice of

disposition and the status hearing is converted to a change of plea hearing, Counsel shall

be present in person in the courtroom.

Dated: November 29, 2011

Case 1:11-cr-00420-LTB Document 17 Filed 11/29/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

FRANTZ BRIFIL,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D23-141

[July 27, 2023]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. 

Lucie County; Robert L. Pegg, Judge; L.T. Case No. 562018CF002443.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Narine Austin, Assistant 

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Sorraya M. SolagesJones, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

MAY, CIKLIN and ARTAU, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya

Civil Action No. 11BcvB02712BREBBKMT

LEROY DAMASIO FRESQUEZ,

Plaintiff,

v. 

DEPUTY SHERIFF RYAN VIERS, 

CLAUDIA VAN BUREN, HAS,

LIEUTENANT REGINA MARINELLI,

CORRECTIONAL HEALTHCARE COMPANIES, INC. d/b/a CORRECTIONAL

HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT, INC., and 

ONE OR MORE JOHN DOES,

Defendants.

MINUTE ORDER

ORDER ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KATHLEEN M. TAFOYA

“Defendants’ Joint Motion for Leave to Take Deposition” (Doc. No. 197, filed March 2, 2015) is 

GRANTED. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(2)(B), the court hereby grants Defendants leave to 

take Plaintiff’s deposition at the Colorado State Penitentiary, subject to the provisions of 

D.C.COLO.LCivR 30.1 on deposition scheduling and the rules and regulations of the CDOC and 

the facility.

Dated: March 3, 2015

Case 1:11-cv-02712-REB-KMT Document 199 Filed 03/03/15 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 32.1

                                  CERTIFICATION
                           Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
                 (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

In connection  with the Quarterly  Report on Form 10-QSB of Incentra  Solutions,
Inc. (the  "Company") for the period ended September 30, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  Thomas P.
Sweeney  III,  as Chief  Executive  Officer of the  Company,  hereby  certifies,
pursuant  to  18  U.S.C.   ss.1350,   as  adopted  pursuant  to  ss.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:    November 14, 2005                     By:  /s/ Thomas P. Sweeney III
                                                    -------------------------
                                                    Thomas P. Sweeney III
                                                    Chief Executive Officer


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

This  certification   accompanies  each  Report  pursuant  to  ss.  906  of  the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and shall not,  except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of ss.18
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed  original 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.
Exhibit 23.3

 

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

 

The Board of Directors

HSBC Technology & Services (USA) Inc.

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No. 333-138404 and No. 333-138404-01) on Form S-3 of HSBC Private Label Credit Card Master Note Trust (USA) I of our attestation report dated March 16, 2009 with respect to HSBC Technology & Services (USA) Inc.’s  (the Company) assessment of compliance with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d)(2)(i) and 1122(d)(4)(iv) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation ABapplicable to the servicing of asset backed securitization transactions secured by private label credit card receivables, as of and for the year ended December 31, 2008. Management has determined that all other criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) are not applicable to the Company’s activities.  Our attestation report appears in the December 31, 2008 annual report on Form 10-K of HSBC Private Label Credit Card Master NoteTrust (USA) I.  

 

/s/ KPMG LLP

 

Chicago, Illinois

March 25, 2009
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Robert E. Blackburn

Criminal Case No. 11-cr-00422-REB

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

1. HA MANH DO,

2. HAI MANH DO,

3. NATHAN TOAN MANH DO, and

4. RICHARD CROSSE,

Defendants.

MINUTE ORDER1

The matter is before the court sua sponte. On May 9, 2012, various motions to

suppress were set for hearing to be held on August 17, 2012. See Minute Order [#135]

filed May 9, 2012. However, the suppression hearing is set after the trial that is

scheduled to commence July 23, 2012. See Order [#65] filed December 1, 2011, at 7, ¶

9. Thus, the suppression hearing now set for August 17, 2012, must be vacated and reset to a date and time not less than 30 days before trial is set to commence.

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. That the suppression hearing now set for August 17, 2012, is VACATED and

CONTINUED pending further order; and

2. That on May 15, 2012, at 10:30 a.m. (MDT), the court shall conduct a

telephonic2

 setting conference to re-set the suppression hearing; provided that counsel

for the government shall arrange, schedule, and coordinate the conference call

necessary to facilitate the setting conference. 

Dated: May 10, 2012

1 This minute order is issued pursuant to the express authority of the Honorable Robert E. 

Blackburn, United States District Judge for the District of Colorado. 

2

 The appearances of the defendants are waived for the limited purposes of the setting

conference.

Case 1:11-cr-00422-REB Document 136 Filed 05/10/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>


                                                                Exhibit 23.1



                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements of
The Learning Company, Inc. (formerly known as SoftKey International, Inc.) on
Form S-3 (File Nos. 33-73422, 33-63073, 333-00145, 333-02385, 333-03271,
333-10009, 333-40543, 333-40549, 333-48009, 333-50915, 333-56641, 333-57397,
333-62171) and Form S-8 (File Nos. 33-75134, 33-92920, 33-92922, 33-61931,
333-00107, 333-02337, 333-04619, 333-40539, 333-42449, 333-43653, 333-45113,
333-45115, 333-57335, 333-59123, 333-67045, 333-67047, 333-70705) of our report
dated March 26, 1999 on our audits of the consolidated balance sheets and
financial statement schedule of valuation and qualifying accounts of The
Learning Company, Inc. as of January 2, 1999 and January 3, 1998 and the related
consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity and cash flows for
each of the three years in the period ended January 2, 1999, which report is
included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.



                                  /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
                                  PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP


Boston, Massachusetts
April 2, 1999
|EXHIBIT 32.1
|------------



|CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The undersigned hereby certifies in his capacity as Chief Executive Officer of Belrose Capital Fund LLC (the Fund), that based on his knowledge:

|(a) | the Annual Report of the Fund on Form 10K for the year ended December 31, 2005 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   
|(b) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and the results of operations of the Fund for such period.                                    
|   



|Date: March 15, 2006
|--------------------



| | /s/ Thomas E. Faust Jr.Thomas E. Faust Jr.Chief Executive Officer
| | -----------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Fund and will be retained by the Fund and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

          - [Transmittal Nos. 08-19]

# AGENCY:

Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated 21 July 1996.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 601-3740.

The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittals 08-19 with attached transmittal, policy justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.

Dated: September 25, 2008.

Patricia L. Toppings,

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

      ( print page 58158)          ( print page 58159)          ( print page 58160)          ( print page 58161)          ( print page 58162)    

BILLING CODE 5001-06-M

[FR Doc. E8-23337 Filed 10-3-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-06-C
#### State of Nebraska ex rel. Nebraska State Bar Association, relator, v. Kent F. Jacobs, respondent.

555 N.W.2d 54

Filed November 8, 1996.

No. S-96-1035.

White, C.J., Caporale, Lanphier, Wright, Connolly, and Gerrard, JJ.

Per Curiam.

Kent F. Jacobs was admitted to the practice of law in the State of Nebraska on June 22, 1970. Jacobs was thereafter engaged in the private practice of law in Seward, Nebraska.

*116On October 18, 1996, Jacobs filed a voluntary surrender of his license to practice law in Nebraska. In voluntarily surrendering his license, Jacobs admitted that he borrowed $260,000 on an unsecured promissory note from a client while representing that client in a different matter. Jacobs also admitted that he did not advise the client to require collateral for the note or to obtain independent legal advice.

In his surrender of license, Jacobs stated that his failure to advise his client regarding the lack of collateral on the note and the need for independent legal advice constituted a violation of Canon 5, DR 5-104(A), of the Code of Professional Responsibility adopted by the Nebraska Supreme Court. DR 5-104(A) provides that “[a] lawyer shall not enter into a business transaction with a client if they have differing interests therein and if the client expects the lawyer to exercise his or her professional judgment therein for the protection of the client, unless the client has consented after full disclosure.”

Jacobs admits in his filing that he knowingly and voluntarily surrenders his license to practice law and consents to the entry of an order of disbarment. Jacobs also freely, knowingly, and voluntarily waives his right to notice, appearance, or hearing prior to the entry of such order.

We accept Jacobs’ surrender of his license to practice law in Nebraska and order him disbarred from the practice of law in the State of Nebraska, effective immediately.

Judgment of disbarment.

Fahrnbruch, J., not participating.
# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 3- 11 02

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.
Orla nd o S tra w
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of I owa - Ced ar Ra pi ds

__ __ __ __ __ __ Su bm it te d: Apri l 1 7, 2 01 3 Fil ed : Ap ril 22 , 20 13 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re BYE, ARNOLD, and SHEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM.

Afte r Orla nd o St raw a d m it te d vi ol at in g hi s rel eas e co nd it io ns , th e di st ric t
co ur t rev ok ed hi s su pe rv is edrel eas e an d s en te nc ed hi m to 9 m on th s in pr is on wit h 1

The Hon or ab le Lin da R. Rea de , Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r 1 th e Nor th ern Dis tri ctof I owa
.no su pe rv is io n to fo ll ow. St raw ap pe al s, arg ui ng th at hi s se nt en c e is un reas on ab le

an d th at th e co ur t im

pr op erl y weig he d th e s e n t e n ci ng fact or s. W e di sa gr ee. The

reco rd sh ows th at th e di st ric t co ur t pr op erl y co ns id ered th e rel ev an t se nt en ci ng fact or s be fo re im

po si ng a rev oc at io n se nt en ce th at was au th or iz e d b y s t a tu te an d wit hi n th e ap pl ic ab le Gui de li ne s ran ge
. Se e 18 U.S.C. §§ 35 53 (a), 35 83 (e)( 3) ; Uni te d St at es v. Pet rei ki s, 55 1 F.3 d 82 2 , 8 2 4 ( 8 t h Ci r. 20 09 ) (ap pl y in g pr es um pt io n of

su bs ta nt iv e reas on ab le ne ss to rev oc at io n se nt en ce wit hi n Gui de li ne s ran ge ); Uni te d St at es v. W hi te Face , 38 3 F.3 d 73 3, 74 0 (8 th Ci r
. 2 0 0 4 ) ( co ur t ne ed no t li st ev ery § 35 53 (a) fact or whe n se nt en ci ng de fen da nt up on rev oc at io n of su pe rv is ed rel eas e).

Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm th e ju d g men t of th e di st ric t co ur t. W e al so gr an t
co un se l le av e to wit hd raw, su bjec t to co un se l in fo rm in g Sh aw ab ou t pro ced ur es fo r
se ek in g re he ari ng or f

il in g a pe ti ti on forcert io rari

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-2

-