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

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with
the accompanying Annual Report of Dorchester Minerals, L.P., (the Partnership) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2008 (the Report), each of the undersigned officers of Dorchester Minerals Management GP LLC,
General Partner of Dorchester Minerals Management LP, General Partner of the Partnership, hereby certifies that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                        |  |  |  |                            
|----------------------- |  |  |  | ---------------------------
|                        |  | 
|                        |  |  |  | /s/ William Casey McManemin
|                        |  |  |  | William Casey McManemin    
|Date: February 26, 2009 |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer    
|                        |  | 
|Date: February 26, 2009 |  |  |  | /s/ H.C. Allen, Jr.        
|                        |  |  |  | H.C. Allen, Jr.            
|                        |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 21.1

SUBSIDIARIES OF MTC TECHNOLOGIES, INC.



|                                  |  |                       
|--------------------------------- |  | ----------------------
|Subsidiary                        |  | State of Incorporation
|MTC Technologies, Inc.            |  | Ohio                  
|MTC Technologies Services, Inc.   |  | Ohio                  
|AMCOMP Corporation                |  | California            
|International Consultants, Inc.   |  | Ohio                  
|Vitronics, Inc.                   |  | New Jersey            
|Command Technologies, Inc.        |  | Virginia              
|OnBoard Software, Inc.            |  | Texas                 
|Manufacturing Technology, Inc.    |  | Florida               
|MTC Guam, LLC                     |  | Guam                  
|Aerospace Integration Corporation |  | Florida
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 11
                         PROVIDENT AMERICAN CORPORATION
                    COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS (LOSS) PER SHARE


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
(In thousands except per share data)

                                                    Three Months Ended        Nine Months Ended
                                                       September 30,             September 30,
                                                    1996           1995       1996           1995     
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                               <C>            <C>         <C>            <C>    
Primary Earnings (Loss) Per Share

NET INCOME (LOSS) APPLICABLE TO COMMON STOCK:     $    746       $ (768)     $15,023      $ (1,974)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WEIGHTED AVERAGE SHARES:                          
     Common stock                                    9,789        9,098        9,461         9,096 
     Common stock equivalents applicable to       
       stock options and warrants                    1,380            *        1,290              *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total                                     11,169        9,098       10,751         9,096 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NET INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE:                      $   0.07       $(0.08)     $  1.40      $  (0.22)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Fully Diluted Earnings (Loss) Per Share

NET INCOME (LOSS) APPLICABLE TO COMMON STOCK:     $    746       $ (768)     $15,023      $ (1,974)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WEIGHTED AVERAGE SHARES:
     Common stock                                    9,789        9,098        9,461         9,096 
     Common stock equivalents applicable to 
       stock options and warrants                    1,490             *       1,428              *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total                                     11,279        9,098       10,889         9,096  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NET INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE:                      $   0.07       $(0.08)     $  1.38      $  (0.22)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
</TABLE>

* Anti-dilutive; therefore effects have been excluded.

                              Page 20 of 22 Pages
deac_ex1028.htm


EXHIBIT 10.28


 


Revolving Line of Credit Promissory Note


 



	
[$50,000.00]

	
[09/1/2013]












For Value Received, Elite Data Services, Inc., a a Florida corporation ("Maker") promises to pay to Sarah Myers, an individual (the "Payee"), or at such other places as Payee may designate from time to time in writing, the principal sum fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) or so much of that sum as may be advanced under this Revolving Line of Credit Promissory Note.  







Interest







Interest shall accrue on the unpaid principal balance at 12% per annum. Payments of principal and interest shall be made as provided below in the paragraph entitled “Payment of Principal Interest.” 







Payment of Principal Interest







Commencing on the date one (1) month following the date of this Promissory Note, and continuing on the first day of each month thereafter, Maker shall pay to Payee monthly payments of interest only, continuing for twelve (12) months, at the end of which time, the remaining principal balance, if any, shall be due and payable. In the event any payment is not received by Payee within ten (10) days following its due date, a late charge equal to five percent (5%) of the payment shall be due from Maker to Payee in addition to the installment that is otherwise due. Maker acknowledges that this late charge is intended to reimburse Payee for administrative expenses incurred by Payee due to Maker’s failure to make timely payments.







Line of Credit







This Agreement evidences a revolving line of credit.  Advances under this Agreement may be requested orally by Maker.  The unpaid principal balance owing on this Agreement may be evidenced by endorsement or amendments to the Agreement or by Payee’s internal records.  Payee shall have no obligation to advance funds under this Agreement if Maker is in default under the terms of the Agreement or any agreement that Maker has with Payee, Maker ceases doing business or is insolvent, or Payee in good faith believes itself insecure.







Prepayment Privilege







Principal and/or interest may be prepaid in whole or in part at any time without penalty.







Acceleration







In the event that Maker shall default in the payment of interest or principal when due, and if such default shall continue for thirty (30) days following written notice from Payee to Maker, the whole sum of the principal balance and all accrued interest thereon shall become immediately due and payable at the option of Payee upon notice to Maker.







Miscellaneous







If Payee institutes a judicial action to collect on this Promissory Note, Maker promises to pay reasonable attorneys' fees awarded by the court.  


 


This Agreement shall be construed under the laws of Florida in the jurisdiction where the lender resides.


 


 




	By:	/s/ Steven Frye	 
	 	 	 
	By:	/s/ Sarah Myers
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-12-00698- CR
Roni Medearis, Appellant

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F TRAVIS CO UNTY, 427 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. D-1 -DC- 08- 9048 7, H ONO RAB LE JIM CO RONADO , JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N P ER CURIAM

Roni Medea

ri s seeks to appea l the trial court’s denial of his motion for postconviction DNA testing. Howeve r, the cler k’s rec ord does not cont ai n the require d trial court
cer tification of Medea

ris’s rig ht of appea l. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a) (2 ) (re quiring trial court’s
cer tification of defe ndant’s rig ht of appea l “ea ch time it en t er s a judgme nt of guilt or other appea lable orde r”) , (d) ( requiringrec ord to include trial c ourt’s ce rtification).

This appea l i s t h er ef

o re abate d and the trial court is direc ted to prepa re and file its cer tification of Medea

ris’s rig ht of appea l as required by Rule 25.2(a) (2). A supplemental cler k’s rec ord containing the trial court’s cer tification shall be filed with this Co u rt n o l at er than August 26, 2013. SeeTex. R. App. P . 25.2(d), 34.5( c)( 2).Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Pemberton and Rose

Filed: Jul y

26, 2013 Abated Do Not Publish

2
II 

Calendar No. 414 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 212 

[Report No. 113–184] 

To approve the transfer of Yellow Creek Port properties in Iuka, Mississippi. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 4, 2013 

Mr. COCHRAN (for himself and Mr. WICKER) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 

Public Works 

JUNE 5, 2014 

Reported by Mrs. BOXER, without amendment 

A BILL 

To approve the transfer of Yellow Creek Port properties 

in Iuka, Mississippi. 

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

3 SECTION 1. TRANSFER OF YELLOW CREEK PORT PROP4 ERTIES. 

5 In accordance with section 4(k) of the Tennessee Val6 ley Authority Act of 1933 (16 U.S.C. 831c(k)), Congress 


tjames on DSK5VPTVN2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 212 RS

1 approves the conveyance by the Tennessee Valley Author2 ity, on behalf of the United States, to the State of Mis3 sissippi of the Yellow Creek Port properties owned by the 

4 United States and in the custody of the Authority at Iuka, 

5 Mississippi, as of the date of enactment of this Act. 


tjames on DSK5VPTVN2PROD with BILLS

tjames on DSK5VPTVN2PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 414 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 212 

[Report No. 113–184] 

A BILL 

To approve the transfer of Yellow Creek Port 

properties in Iuka, Mississippi. 

JUNE 5, 2014 

Reported without amendment 


tjames on DSK5VPTVN2PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 99b

CERTIFICATE OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Harry Miller, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Form 10-KSB for the period ended
December 31, 2002 of Coronation Acquisition Corp.;

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
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures
(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15 and 15d-15) for the registrant
and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure
  that material information relating to the registrant, 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
  registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days
  prior to the filing date of this report (the "Evaluation Date"); and (c) Presented in this report our conclusions about the
  effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
  evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;


5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and
the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing
the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of
  internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
  record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for
  the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
  management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's
  internal controls; and


6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have
indicated in this report whether there were significant changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

|Date: March 31, 2003 | /s/ Harry Miller
    _______________________
    Harry Miller, Chief Financial Officer
|-------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* Provide a separate certification for each principal
executive officer and principal financial officer of the registrant. See Rules
13a-14(a) and 15d-14(a).
#### Ernest MILES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 46109.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 1, 1972.

T. P. Henley, San Antonio, for appellant.

Ted Butler, Dist. Atty., G. E. Wilcox and Antonio G. Cantu, Asst. Dist. Attys., San Antonio, and Jim D. Vollers, State’s Atty., and Robert A. Huttash, Asst. State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is passing as true a forged instrument; the punishment, upon a plea of guilty to the court, two (2) years.

Appellant’s two grounds of error are brought forward without any citation of authority or discussion. Consequently they are not in compliance with Article 40.09, Section 9, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P. However, we will briefly discuss appellant’s first contention.

Appellant contends the evidence is insufficient to support the judgment.

The record reflects appellant waived his right to trial by jury and contains appellant’s affidavit in which he agrees to stipulate testimony by'waiving the appearance, confrontation, and cross-examination of witnesses and consents to the introduction of testimony by affidavits, written statements of witnesses, and other documentary evidence. Appellant’s affidavit, which was admitted into evidence also stipulates the exhibits admitted into evidence are true and correct and further states that: “All the acts and allegations in said indictment charging the offense of Passing as True a Forged Instrument are true and correct

*327The affidavits from the witnesses reveal appellant passed a money order which was stolen earlier from another establishment.

The evidence is sufficient to support the judgment. McNeese v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 468 S.W.2d 801; Edwards v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 463 S.W.2d 733; Edwards v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 478 S.W.2d 473.

The judgment is affirmed.
Exhibit 34.5

 

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

 

The Board of Directors 

HSBC Electronic Data Processing (Philippines) Inc.:

 

We have examined management’s assessment, included in the accompanying “Report on Compliance With Applicable Servicing Criteria Pursuant To Item 1122 of Regulation AB Under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934” (Exhibit 33.5) that HSBC Electronic Data Processing (Philippines) Inc. (the Company) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d)(4)(viii) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB (the Applicable Servicing Criteria)applicable to the servicing of asset backed securitization transactions backed by private label credit card receivables, as of and for the period from February 14, 2007 (date of issuance of the initial asset-backed securitization transaction covered by this report) through December 31, 2007. Exhibit 33.5 identifies the individual asset-backed securitization transactions (the Covered Transactions) defined by management aspart of their assessment. Management has determined that all other criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) are not applicable to the Company’s activities with respect to the Covered Transactions.  Management is responsible for the Company’s compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assessment about the Company’s compliance based on our examination.

 

Our examination was conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States)****and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances.  Our examination included testing of less than all of the individual asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Covered Transactions, testing of less than all of the servicing activities related to the Covered Transactions, and determining whether the Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.  Furthermore, our procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by theCompany during the period covered by this report.  Our procedures were not designed to determine whether errors may have occurred either prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report for the selected transactions or any other transactions. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.  Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company’s compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.

 

In our opinion, management’s assessment that the Company complied with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of and for the period from February 14, 2007 through December 31, 2007 is fairly stated, in all material respects.

 

/s/ KPMG

 

Chicago, Illinois

March 3, 2008
#### Nellie YANCEY, Administratrix of the Estate of Thomas *J.*Yancey, Jr., Deceased (plaintiff), v. UNITED STATES of America (defendant), Appellant, v. I. ALPER CO. (Third-Party Defendant). Nellie YANCEY, Administratrix of the Estate of Thomas J. Yancey, Jr., Deceased (plaintiff), v. UNITED STATES of America (defendant), v. *I.*ALPER CO. (Third-Party Defendant), Appellant.

Nos. 14275, 14276.

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.

Argued June 5, 1963.

Decided July 17, 1963.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 11, 1963.

Edward Berlin, Dept, of Justice, "Washington, D. C. (John W. Douglas, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., Drew J. T. O’Keefe, U. S. Atty., Sherman L. Cohn, Attys. Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., -on the brief), for the United States.

James J. McCabe, Jr., Philadelphia, Pa. (John M. Ross, Duane, Morris & Heckscher, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for I. Alper Co.

Joseph D. Shein, Philadelphia, Pa. (Shein & Berlant, Philadelphia, Pa., on the .brief),, for appellee.

Before BIGGS, Chief Judge, and MCLAUGHLIN and GANEY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

We have examined the record in this case and have weighed carefully the arguments of the parties. We can find no substantial error in the proceedings and consequently the judgment and order appealed from will be affirmed.
Exhibit 99.1        Officer's Certificate regarding Annual Statement of
                    Compliance of Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corp.

                   WASHINGTON MUTUAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES CORP.
                              OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE

     The undersigned  officer of Washington Mutual Mortgage  Securities Corp., a
Delaware  corporation (the "Company")  hereby certifies on behalf of the Company
and on his own behalf for purposes of the WASHINGTON MUTUAL MORTGAGE  SECURITIES
CORP. MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2002-MS3, as follows:

     1. I am a duly appointed and qualified First Vice President of the Company.

     2. Capitalized terms used and not defined herein shall have the meanings
ascribed to such terms in the Pooling and Servicing Agreement related to the
above-referenced series of Certificates.

     3. I am duly authorized to execute and deliver this Officer's Certificate
on behalf of the Company.

     4. A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the preceding
calendar year and performance under this Agreement has been made under my
supervision.

     5. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer
has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement throughout such year.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed my name as of March 29, 2005.





                   WASHINGTON MUTUAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES CORP.


                     By: /s/ Thomas G. Lehmann
                         -------------------------------------
                         Thomas G. Lehmann
                         First Vice President
#### Ivan STAVERSON and Verna Staverson, Appellants, v. KENTUCKY UTILITIES COMPANY, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Feb. 2, 1973.

G. Wix Unthank, Charles T. Cornett, Harlan, for appellants.

Rice & Huff, Harlan, Stoll, Keenon & Park, Lexington, for appellee.

Opinion of the Court by

Special Commissioner FREDERICK M. WARREN,

Affirming.*
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.0



                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT
                         ------------------------------



NRLP Management Corp., a wholly-owned Nevada corporation, and Pizza World
Supreme, Inc., a wholly-owned Nevada corporation, are "significant subsidiaries"
of the Registrant (as such term is defined in Rule 1-02(v) of Regulation S-X).
The remaining subsidiaries of the Company, considered in the aggregate, would
not constitute a "significant subsidiary".