alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT NO. 32.1
Form 10-QSB
Fast Eddie Racing Stables, Inc.
File No. 0-19276

          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 Fast Eddie Racing Stables,  Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2001 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Glenn
A. Little,  Chief Executive and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 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: October 4, 2004                          By: /s/ Glenn A. Little
      ---------------                             ------------------------------
                                                                 Glenn A. Little
                                                     Chief Executive Officer and
                                                         Chief Financial Officer


A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to Fast Eddie Racing  Stables,  Inc. and will be retained by Fast Eddie
Racing Stables,  Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
ex10-47.htm


EXHIBIT 10.47


 



PROMISSORY NOTE EXTENSION AGREEMENT


 



	$45,000.00  	April 30, 2014





 


For value received, Guardian 8 Holdings, a Nevada corporation (the “Maker”) promised to pay to Jim Nolton, or its registered assigns or successors in interest (the “Holder”) the Principal Amount and Interest (both as defined below) in the manner and upon the terms and conditions as set forth in that Term Note (“Note”) in the sum of Forty-Five Thousand Dollars ($45,000.00), dated September 1, 2013, which Note becomes due and payable on or about April 30, 2014.







By execution by the parties herein, this Promissory Note Extension Agreement extends the Maturity Date of the Note to and including July 15, 2014. All terms and conditions of the Note shall remain the same other than the Maturity Date.







IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Maker and Holder have caused this Promissory Note Extension Agreement to be executed and delivered as of the day and year first above written.







“Maker”


Guardian 8 Holdings


a Nevada corporation

















By: /s/ C. Stephen Cochennet                                                                          


                                                                       C. Stephen Cochennet, Chief Executive Officer







“Holder”






















/s/ Jim Nolton                                                                          


Jim Nolton
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIALOFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**

**OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of HealthAxis Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Qfor the period ending March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), John M. Carradine, ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company and Ronald K. Herbert, Chief FinancialOfficer, do each hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adoptedpursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

          (1) TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.78m or 78o(d)); and

 

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

 

 
| By: /s/ John M. Carradine  |   |
|----------------------------|--------|
|                       |
| John  M. Carradine         |
| Chief  Executive Officer   |
| May 9,  2008          |
|                       |
|                       |
| By:  /s/ Ronald K. Herbert |   |
|                       |
| Ronald  K. Herbert         |
| Chief  Financial Officer   |
| May 9,  2008          |

 

----
#### WHITCUP v. BARNETT FARMS CO., Inc.

Supreme Court of Florida.

January Term 1954.

Certiorari denied without opinion.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 21.1

                             List of Subsidiaries

1.   TRH, Inc., a Delaware corporation.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
COMTREX SYSTEMS CORPORATION
ARTICLE 5 OF REGULATION S-X
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                         123,622
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,810,117
<ALLOWANCES>                                   149,563
<INVENTORY>                                  1,331,630
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,275,484
<PP&E>                                       1,471,284
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,172,161
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,775,552
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,270,609
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,592
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,564,125
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,775,552
<SALES>                                      4,134,200
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,134,200
<CGS>                                        2,226,653
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,914,530
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                15,298
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              32,049
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                187,621
<INCOME-TAX>                                    37,846
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            149,775
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   149,775
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .04
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 21 (Tuesday, February 2, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 5342]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-2183]


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

NATIONAL INDIAN GAMING COMMISSION


Fee Rate

AGENCY: National Indian Gaming Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given, pursuant to 25 CFR 514.1(a)(3), that 
the National Indian Gaming Commission has adopted preliminary annual 
fee rates of 0.00% for tier 1 and 0.060% (.00060) for tier 2 for 
calendar year 2010. These rates shall apply to all assessable gross 
revenues from each gaming operation under the jurisdiction of the 
Commission. If a tribe has a certificate of self-regulation under 25 
CFR part 518, the preliminary fee rate on class II revenues for 
calendar year 2010 shall be one-half of the annual fee rate, which is 
0.030% (.00030).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chris White, National Indian Gaming 
Commission, 1441 L Street, NW., Suite 9100, Washington, DC 20005; 
telephone (202) 632-7003; fax (202) 632-7066 (these are not toll-free 
numbers).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) 
established the National Indian Gaming Commission which is charged 
with, among other things, regulating gaming on Indian lands.
    The regulations of the Commission (25 CFR part 514), as amended, 
provide for a system of fee assessment and payment that is self-
administered by gaming operations. Pursuant to those regulations, the 
Commission is required to adopt and communicate assessment rates; the 
gaming operations are required to apply those rates to their revenues, 
compute the fees to be paid, report the revenues, and remit the fees to 
the Commission on a semi-annual basis.
    The regulations of the Commission and the preliminary rate being 
adopted today are effective for calendar year 2010. Therefore, all 
gaming operations within the jurisdiction of the Commission are 
required to self administer the provisions of these regulations, and 
report and pay any fees that are due to the Commission by June 30, 
2010.

    Dated: January 28, 2010.
George Skibine,
Acting Chairman, National Indian Gaming Commission.
[FR Doc. 2010-2183 Filed 2-1-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7565-01-P
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 6, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 03-30449

Summary Calendar

_____________________

IN RE: COSSETTA WARD; DERRICK WARD,

 Debtors.

COSSETTA WARD; DERRICK WARD,

Appellants,

versus

BATON ROUGE NEONATAL ASSOCIATES, INC.,

Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No.: 03-CV-188-A

_________________________________________________________________

Before JOLLY, WIENER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Cosetta and Derrick Ward appeal the judgment of the district

court affirming judgment of the bankruptcy court, which denied the

Wards a discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(2) and (5), and

held that, as to Cosetta Ward, the debt to Baton Rouge Neonatal

Associates was non-dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6). The

district court affirmed the bankruptcy court’s judgment because it

was impossible for the court to determine whether the bankruptcy

court’s factual findings were clearly erroneous, inasmuch as the
Wards failed to include a transcript of the trial in the bankruptcy

court in the record on appeal. The Wards argue that the district

court’s judgment was biased because it gave no weight to the their

trial testimony, and that the district court violated their rights

to due process and equal protection because it did not ascertain

why a trial transcript was not ordered -- they claim, for the first

time on appeal, that they lacked financial resources to pay for a

transcript.

Because a trial transcript was not made a part of the record

on appeal, it was impossible for the district court to give weight

to the Wards’ trial testimony. The district court’s failure to

inquire about the reason why the transcript was not part of the

record did not violate the Wards’ due process and equal protection

rights. The Wards did not seek leave to proceed in forma pauperis

or request a transcript at public expense.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court

is AFFIRMED, essentially for the reasons stated by the district

court.

A F F I R M E D.
#### Joe Neil JACKSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 46348.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 13, 1973.

Rehearing Denied July 3, 1973.

*94Jack M. Yates (On appeal only), Abilene, for appellant.

Ed Paynter, Dist. Atty., Abilene, Jim D. Vollers, State’s Atty., and Robert A. Hut-tash, Asst. State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is assault with intent to murder with two prior noncapital felony convictions alleged for enhancement; the punishment, life.

The sole question presented for review is the sufficiency of the evidence to show that appellant was the same person who had been convicted in the prior convictions alleged for enhancement.

At the punishment stage of the trial when the State read the remaining allegations in the indictment (containing the two prior convictions alleged for enhancement) the court called upon appellant to plead to such allegations to which appellant plead “true”. This Court has recently in O’Dell v. State, 467 S.W.2d 444, and Gray v. State, 493 S.W.2d 236, held that a contention that the evidence is insufficient to support the enhancement portion of the indictment is waived by a plea of “true” thereto. By such a plea we hold that appellant waived any variance in the description of the appellant contained in the prison packages. The fingerprints were shown to be identical and a witness identified appellant as being the same person who had been convicted in one of the prior convictions alleged for enhancement.

Finding the evidence sufficient to support the conviction, the judgment is affirmed.
Sprint Corp 10-KT Exhibit 10.78 2013






Exhibit 10.78






FIRST AMENDMENT
                      TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT    




This First Amendment (the “Amendment”) to that certain Employment Agreement by and between Sprint Corporation and Brandon Dow Draper, effective as of September 6, 2013 (the “Agreement”), is made and entered into February 21, 2014  (the “Amendment Effective Date”).  Certain capitalized term shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the Agreement.


WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive desire to amend the Agreement as provided herein.


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and of the covenants and agreements set forth herein and for other good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency and receipt of which are hereby acknowledged, as of the Amendment Effective Date, the Company and the Executive hereby amend Section 8, Place of Performance, of the Agreement by adding the language underlined below:


8.    Place of Performance.  In connection with his employment by the Company, the Executive shall be based at the principal executive offices of the Company in the vicinity of Overland Park, Kansas (the “Place of Performance”), except for travel reasonably required for Company business. The Executive will relocate the Executive’s residence to the area surrounding the Executive’s Place of Performance, in accordance with the Company’s relocation policy applicable to senior executives (plus tax assistance with respect to the Company’s payment of state home sale transaction expenses), on or before January 1, 2014. If the Company relocates the Executive’s Place of Performance more than 50 miles from his Place of Performance prior to such relocation, the Executive shall relocate to a residence within the greater of (a) 50 miles of such relocated Place of Performance or (b) such total miles that do not exceed the total number of miles the Executive commuted to his Place of Performance prior to relocation of the Executive’s Place of Performance. To the extent the Executive relocates his residence as provided in this Section 8, the Company will pay or reimburse the Executive’s relocation expenses in accordance with the Company’s relocation policy applicable to senior executives.  
In all other respects, the terms, conditions and provisions of the Agreement shall remain the same.


[signature page follows]













IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be signed by an officer pursuant to the authority of its Board, and the Executive has executed this Amendment, effective as of the day and year first written above.




SPRINT CORPORATION






/s/  SANDRA PRICE                
By: Sandra J. Price
       Senior Vice President, Human Resources
                        




EXECUTIVE






/s/  BRANDON DOW DRAPER        
Brandon Dow Draper
































































Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 231 Referred in House (RFH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                 S. 231

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             August 1, 2014

 Referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and in 
  addition to the Committee on Natural Resources, for a period to be 
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration 
  of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 
                               concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To reauthorize the Multinational Species Conservation Funds Semipostal 
                                 Stamp.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Multinational Species Conservation 
Funds Semipostal Stamp Reauthorization Act of 2013''.

SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION.

    Section 2(c)(2) of the Multinational Species Conservation Funds 
Semipostal Stamp Act of 2010 (39 U.S.C. 416 note) is amended by 
striking ``2 years'' and inserting ``6 years''.

            Passed the Senate July 31, 2014.

            Attest:

                                                NANCY ERICKSON,

                                                             Secretary.
```
Exhibit 32.1

Certification  of  Chief  Executive  Officer  of  Crescent  Communications, Inc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and Section 1350 of 18
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S.C.  63.
----------

I, Manfred Sternberg, the Chief Executive Officer of Crescent Communications,
Inc., hereby certify that Crescent Communications, Inc.'s periodic report on
Form 10-QSB, for the period ending September 30, 2003, fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and that information contained in the periodic report on Form 10-QSB fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of the
operations of Crescent Communications, Inc.



Date: November 14, 2003          /s/ Manfred Sternberg
                                 -----------------------
                                 Manfred Sternberg,
                                 Chief Executive Officer


<PAGE>
Order entered October 2 , 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas** No. 05 - 14 - 01236 - CV IN RE JUANITO MARSHALL, Relator Original Proceeding from the 265th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F09 - 5398 4 - R 

### O RDER Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. We ORDER relator to bear the costs of this original proceeding.

/s/ DOUGLAS S. LANG JUSTICE
Exhibit 99.1



                                 CERTIFICATION

I, Paul Mitrokostas, certify that:

     1.   I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K in respect of the
          Corporate Backed Trust Certificates, AT&T Wireless Services
          Note-Backed Series 2002-7 Trust (the "Trust") and all reports on
          Form 8-K containing distribution or servicing reports of the Trust
          filed in respect of periods included in the year covered by this
          annual report of the Trust;

     2.   Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a
          whole, 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 as of the last day of the period covered by this
          annual report;

     3.   Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information
          required to be provided to the Depositor by the Trustee under the
          pooling and servicing or similar agreement, for inclusion in these
          reports is included in these reports; and

     4.   I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
          Depositor and the Trustee under the pooling and servicing or similar
          agreement and based upon my knowledge and the annual compliance
          review required under that agreement, and except as disclosed in the
          reports, the Depositor and Trustee have each fulfilled its
          obligations under that agreement.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information
provided to me by the following unaffiliated party: U.S. Bank Trust National
Association, as Trustee.

Date: March 29, 2004


     /s/ PAUL MITROKOSTAS
-----------------------------------------
Paul Mitrokostas, Senior Vice President




                                      7