alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of OmniComm Systems, Inc. (the Company) for the year ended December 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the
undersigned, being, Ronald T. Linares, 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                          |  | 
|--------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|/s/ Ronald T. Linares                                     |  | 
|Ronald T. Linares                                         |  | 
|Vice President and Chief Accounting and
Financial Officer |  | 

March 30, 2007
#### Dana Alan PEVEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 2D10-3963.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 20, 2011.

Dana Alan Pevey, pro se.

WHATLEY, Judge.

Dana Alan Pevey appeals the order granting in part and denying in part his motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) seeking proper credit for time served. The postconviction court determined that Pevey was entitled to five more days credit than he had received, and it awarded him those five additional days on count one only. Consequently, the court denied Pevey’s assertion that the sentencing court had orally pronounced that he would receive credit against both counts of his consecutive sentences. The record before us does not contain the sentencing transcript, and it was not attached to either Pevey’s motion or the court’s order. Accordingly, we remand for the postconviction court to determine whether the transcript is in the record. If it is, the court shall either grant Pevey’s motion or deny it and attach the portions of the record refuting Pevey’s claim. If the transcript is not in the record, the court shall deny Pevey’s motion without prejudice to him filing an amended motion with the relevant portion of the transcript attached. *See Beard v. State,*27 So.3d 186, 187-88 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (citing *Williams v. State,*957 So.2d 600, 604 (Fla.2007)).

Remanded with directions.

KELLY and LaROSE, JJ., Concur.
exhbiit1021.htm -- Converted by SEC Publisher, created by BCL Technologies Inc., for SEC Filing





Exhibit 10.21

Technical Services Agreement

[Chinese translation]

Between: EcoloCap Solutions Canada Inc. (EcoloCap)

740 St Maurice suite 102 

Montreal QC H3C 1L5

Tel: 0015148763907       Fax: 0015148764080

And

Hebei Fengda Metalized Pellet Co., Ltd. (Fengda) 

[Chinese translation]

East of Pingshe Rd. Jingjing Mining Area, Shijiazhuang City, Hebei 

Province, China 

[Chinese translation] 

Telephone: 0311-82066098 

Mobile: 831132217 

Email: zhanghongbo3@163.com

 

Re: Technical services for CDM project: 1 Million/Yr Metalized Pellet Production Project 

[Chinese translation]

Whereby EcoloCap Solutions (Canada) Inc. will perform for Fengda necessary technical services for the validation of its CDM projects.

[Chinese translation]

In consideration of these services rendered as well as expenses incurred, EcoloCap shall be paid by Fengda professional fees for this project and 

EcoloCap shall be paid a fee for its services which is calculated as follows: 

[Chinese translation]

Amount paid = 15% x Net Revenues from CER [Chinese translation]

Net Revenues = Total validated quantity of CER multiplied by 9.5 Euro – 100,000 Euro (First year) [Chinese translation])

Net Revenues = Total validated quantity of CER multiplied by 9.5 Euro (following years) [Chinese translation]






EcoloCap shall be responsible for the preparation of these technical documents (PIN, PDD, etc.) and shall make best efforts to assist 

Fengda in the approval processes of these projects by local authorities as well as by the DOE and the EB. All the expenses incurred above 

will be borne by EcoloCap.

[Chinese translation]

EcoloCap shall make best effort to help Fengda to get financial participation of foreign investors in the Project.

[Chinese translation]

We agree to the above and acknowledge receiving a copy of this agreement. 

[Chinese translation]

	Dated this 19th day of October 2008.  
	[Chinese translation]  
	  
	     EcoloCap Solutions (Canada) Inc.  
	  
	  
	  
	     Per: DR. TRI VU TRUONG  
	     Dr. Tri Vu Truong  
	     President & CEO  
	  
	  
	Hebei Fengda Metalized Pellet Co., Ltd. (Fengda)  
	[Chinese translation]  
	  
	     Per: LI, LISHENG  
	     Mr. LI, Lisheng  
	     Board Chairman
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM PROFESSIONAL
TRANSPORTATION GROUP LTD INC'S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER
31, 1998, SET FORTH IN THE ACCOMPANYING FORM 10-K AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                    1.0
<CASH>                                       1,003,783
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                7,391,497
<ALLOWANCES>                                   757,765
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             9,889,564
<PP&E>                                       8,686,974
<DEPRECIATION>                              (1,746,914)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              19,818,719
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       14,454,114
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     858,509
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                19,818,719
<SALES>                                     55,066,949
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            55,066,949
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               55,878,673
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            (1,386,346)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          (1,300,341)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (3,498,411)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (3,498,411)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (3,498,411)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.90)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.90)
        

</TABLE>
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



### September 22, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice



### 136915 Michael F. Cavanag h Elizabeth A. Weave r Marilyn Kell y Maura D. Corriga n 

### PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, J ustices



### v SC: 136915 COA: 284481 Jackson CC: 06-004837-FC JAMES VERNON HUGHES, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _________________________/

On order of the Court, th e application for leave to ap peal the May 27, 2008 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.

0915 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 22, 2008

Clerk
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PLATFORM 10, LLC,

Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. BATTLE MOUNTAIN BAND OF THE TE-MOAK TRIBE OF WESTERN SHOSHONE INDIANS OF NEVADA,

Defendant-Appellee. No. 21-17018 D.C. No. 3:20-cv-00238-RCJ-CLB
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Robert Clive Jones, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 16, 2022 ** San Francisco, California Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Platform 10, LLC (Platform 10) appeals from the district court’s dismissal of its breach of contract action against the Battle Mountain Band of the Te-Moak 

# FILED
AUG 18 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

* * The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).Tribe of Western Shoshone Indians of Nevada (the Band) for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction. We review de novo, 1 and we affirm. The district court correctly determined that Platform 10 failed to carry its burden of establishing federal subject matter jurisdiction. See id. ; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 2 Platform 10’s two causes of action— for breaches of contract andthe covenant of good faith and fair dealing— are precisely the sort of “run-of-themill contract claims” 3 over which federal courts do not have jurisdiction, regardless of the presence of an Indian tribe. See Gila River Indian Cmty. v. Henningson, Durham & Richardson , 626 F.2d 708, 714–15 (9th Cir. 1980); see also Begay v. Kerr-McGee Corp. , 682 F.2d 1311, 1315 (9th Cir. 1982). They were not created by federal law, nor is Platform 10’s claimed right to relief dependent “on the resolution of a substantial question of federal law.” Peabody Coal Co. v. Navajo Nation , 373 F.3d 945, 949 (9th Cir. 2004). The claims do not arise under federal law merely because the subject of the parties’ contract was construction of a gaming facility that would itself be subject to federal regulation and oversight. See

1 See Newtok Village v. Patrick , 21 F.4th 608, 615 (9th Cir. 2021).
2 We address federal question jurisdiction only because that is the only basis for jurisdiction asserted in Platform 10’s opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 & n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).

3 Cabazon Band of Mission Indians v. Wilson , 124 F.3d 1050, 1055 (9th Cir. 1997). 2Littell v. Nakai , 344 F.2d 486, 487–88 (9th Cir. 1965). Rather, any right to relief

manifestly sounds in basic contract and tort. See Peabody Coal Co. , 373 F.3d at 951; Newtok Village , 21 F.4th at 619. Moreover, the Band’s alleged consent to federal court jurisdiction and waiver of sovereign immunity in the contract cannot confer federal jurisdiction where none otherwise exists. See Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Cal. State Bd. of Equalization , 858 F.2d 1376, 1380 (9th Cir. 1988); United States v. Park Place Assocs. , 563 F.3d 907, 923 (9th Cir. 2009). AFFIRMED.

3
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1


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


In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Waypoint Financial Corp.
(the "Company") for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David
E. Zuern, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of 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 result of
              operations of the Company.



/s/ David E. Zuern
------------------
David E. Zuern,
President and Chief Executive Officer


November 14, 2003






                                       95
#### Keisha DESSELLE, et al. v. ACADIAN AMBULANCE SERVICE, INC.

No. 2011-CC-1799.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 16, 2011.

In re Acadian Ambulance Service Inc.;— Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Avo-yelles, 12th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 2010-5885; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW11-00894.

Denied.

VICTORY and CLARK, JJ., would grant.
#### Hazel PACE (D), et al. v. HEALTHSOUTH SPECIALTY HOSPITAL OF NORTH LOUISIANA.

No. 2011-CC-1653.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 4, 2011.

In re Healthsouth Specialty Hospital of North Louisiana; — Defendant; Applying *924For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Lincoln, 3rd Judicial District Court Div. A, No. C-211; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 46,653-CW.

Denied.

GUIDRY, J., would grant.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1559 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1559

   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude from income 
 taxation all compensation received for active service as a member of 
                 the Armed Forces of the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 19, 2007

 Mr. Culberson (for himself, Mr. Bartlett of Maryland, Mr. Garrett of 
   New Jersey, Mr. Sensenbrenner, and Mr. Wilson of South Carolina) 
 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 exclude from income 
 taxation all compensation received for active service as a member of 
                 the Armed Forces of the United States.

    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 ``Armed Forces Tax Relief Act of 
2007''.

SEC. 2. EXCLUSION FOR COMPENSATION RECEIVED FOR ACTIVE SERVICE AS A 
              MEMBER OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES.

    (a) In General.--Part III of subchapter B of chapter 1 of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting after section 112 
the following new section:

``SEC. 113. COMPENSATION RECEIVED FOR ACTIVE SERVICE AS A MEMBER OF THE 
              ARMED FORCES.

    ``Gross income shall not include compensation received for active 
service as a member of the Armed Forces of the United States. The 
preceding sentence shall not apply to pensions and retirement pay.''.
    (b) Termination of Limited Exclusion for Combat Pay.--Section 112 
of such Code (relating to certain combat zone compensation of members 
of Armed Forces) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
subsection:
    ``(e) Termination.--Except for purposes of applying subtitle C, 
this section shall not apply to any taxable year ending after the date 
of the enactment of this subsection.''.
    (c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for part III of 
subchapter B of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by inserting after 
the item relating to section 112 the following new item:

``Sec. 113. Compensation received for active service as a member of the 
                            Armed Forces.''.
    (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years ending after the date of the enactment of this 
Act.
                                 <all>
```
Order filed November 1 , 2018

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 18

- 00281

- CV

____________ IN THE INTEREST OF M . E. H

.
On Appeal from the 345th District Court

Travis County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. D

- 1

- AG

- 15

- 002375



### ORDER
In response to our order of October 30, 2018, court reporter Laura Taylor has informed the court that the reporter’s record is complete. Accordingly, appellant’s brief is due by December 03 , 2018 . Tex. R. App. P. 38.6(a)(2).

PER CURIAM
#### AKELMACKER v. KELLY et al.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

Oct. 29, 1951.

Murray Gordon, New York City, for plaintiff.

Richard P. Donovan, Asst. U. S. Atty., New York City, for defendants.

RYAN, District Judge.

PÍáintiff, a veteran and civil service employee, moves for a temporary injunction, restraining the Veterans’ Administration from lowering him in grade classification and salary, pursuant to a reduction in force notice as tire result of which plaintiff was offered and accepted under protest a position at a • reduced grade and salary.

It is plaintiff’s contention that the test us.ed by the 'Veterans’ Administration in determining that as between him ana another veteran, plaintiff was to be lowered in grade, violates his rights under Sec. 12 of the Veterans’ Preference Act of 1944, 5 U.S.C.A. § 861. On his appeal to the Second Regional Office of the Civil Service Commission, the administration’s determination was affirmed, and a further appeal hy plaintiff to the United States Civil Service Commission is pending.

Plaintiff asserts that there is present here such a clear violation of a statutory right that this court may accord him judicial relief before he has exhausted his administrative remedies. From the undisputed facts this is far from clear. This is a case of a “tie” between two veterans. The action of the Veterans’ Administration was taken pursuant to Veterans’ Administration Regulations adopted' under Sec. 20.8 (b) of the Civil Service Commission Regulations. Section 20.8(b) was promulgated pursuant to the mandate of the Veterans’ Preference Act of 1944, which directs that in cases of reduction of personnel “competing employees shall be released in accordance with Civil Service Commission regulations.”

Plaintiff argues that either the Administration’s regulation for the breaking of ties is an erroneous interpretation of the authority conferred on it by Sec. '20.8(b), or that, if it complies with the section, then the validity of this section is doubtful. It is not clear that there has been a violation of the statute, sufficient to invoke the equity powers of this court. Reeber v. Rossell, D.C., 91 F.Supp. 108; Wettre v. Hague, 1 Cir., 168 F.2d 825. The validity of regulations promulgated under statutory mandate is presumed. U. S. ex rel. Knauff v. Watkins, 2 Cir., 173 F.2d 599. The Commission is best qualified to interpret its own regulation.

*529It is difficult to see how plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm if injunctive relief be denied him. If he should succeed in his pending appeal and be restored to his former 'classification, he will be paid the interim 'difference in salary, Sec. 652 (b) (3), '5 U.S.C.A.; if he should not succeed, he may petition the District Court of the District of Columbia for mandamus restoring him to his former grade and sue for his back wages. The fact that this may constitute multiple and circuitous action does not mean that plaintiff is without adequate remedy.

Motion denied; stay vacated.
The HONORABLE ANDREW W. BOGUE, United States District Judge for * the District of South Dakota, sitting by designation. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 97-2788

___________ Richard Breen, a Minor, by and through * his Next Friend Linda Breen; Frank * Breen; Linda Breen, * * Plaintiffs - Appellants, * * v. * * Appeal from the United States St. Charles R-VI School District; Mark * District Court for the Keen; J. Larry Milan; Jerry E. Reese; * Eastern District of Missouri. Marta Baier; Jean Meyer; Gary Lacey; * Wayne Oetting; Diane Rallo; Missouri * [UNPUBLISHED] Department of Elementary and * Secondary Education; Robert E. * Bartman; John Heskett, * * Defendants - Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: February 12, 1998 Filed: April 15, 1998

___________ Before McMILLIAN and LOKEN, Circuit Judges, and BOGUE, District Judge. *

___________The HONORABLE E. RICHARD WEBBER, United States District Judge for 1 the Eastern District of Missouri. -2- PER CURIAM.
Ri cky Breen is a learning disabled teenager. In February 1994, Ricky wa s attending public middle school in St. Charles, Missouri. School officials and Ricky’s parents were involved in d eveloping a new individualized education program (IEP) for Ricky when a controlled substance was found in his school locker. The IEP tea m sh iftedits attention to this problem. It determined that Ricky’s possession of th e controlledsubstance was a manifestation of his disability. Alternative discipline was therefore imposed, and the team continued its work on a revised IEP . Before a new IEP was implemented, Ricky’s parents enrolled hi m in a private school and requested a due process hearing under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C

. §§ 1400 et seq. , seeking rei mbursement of his private school tuition on the ground that public s chool officials had failed to provide him a free appropriate public education

. See 20 U.S.C. § 1415; Mo. Rev. Stat. § 162.961.
A p anel convened under state law decided that the School District had offere d Ricky a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment. A state level Review Officer affirmed. Ricky and his parents then commenced this actio n seeking judicial review under § 1415(e)(2) and asserting additional clai ms under Section 504 of the R ehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794; 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and state law

. Conducting its IDEA review in accordance with the standard of review we described in Independent Sch. Dist. No. 283 v. S.D. , 88 F.3d 556, 561 (8th Cir. 1996), the district court granted summary judgment for all defen dants, agreeing with the panel that Ricky 1 had been provided a free ap propriate public education and rejecting various objections to the state administrative procedures. The Breens appeal, raisingnumerous substantive and procedural issues. After careful review of the record and consideration-3-

of the par ties’ contentions on appeal, we affirm for the reasons stated in the distric t court’s thorough Memorandum and Order dated May 16, 1997. See 8th Cir. Rule 47B. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Torrence HATCH.

No. 2012-KK-0791.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 18, 2012.

In re Hatch, Torrence; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. L, No. 06-10-0605; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2012 KW 31.

Denied.