alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 of Azur International, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Donald H. Goree, Chairman of the Board, 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:

      (1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
            15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, except that certain
            financial statements for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2001 are
            not included therein because the Company does not have the financial
            records to prepare them; and

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


Dated: October 17, 2005               By: /s/ Donald H. Goree
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Donald H. Goree
                                          Chief Executive Officer and
                                          Chairman of the Board
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. TERRANCE WYATT.

April 28, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.14



                        EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT


     Technology Solutions Company ("TSC") and Jack N. Hayden ("Employee") enter
into this amendment to his Employment Agreement as of  October 1, 1999.

     WHEREAS, on January 19, 1996 Employee entered into an employment  agreement
covering his position of Executive Vice President ("Employment Agreement").

     WHEREAS, by agreement dated February 26, 1999 Employee's position was
changed to Group President.

     WHEREAS, the Employment Agreement contains a termination provision which
entitles Employee to receive his salary, a bonus equal to the average annual
bonus earned during the two years immediately preceding the termination for each
of the two years, and health insurance benefits for a two year period or until
Employee is re-employed, whichever comes first, if Employee is terminated by TSC
other than for Serious Misconduct.

     Employee and TSC now agree to amend the termination provision of his
Employment Agreement, Section 3. Termination, paragraph (a) by inserting the
following sentence at the end of paragraph (a): "Notwithstanding anything to
the contrary in any of Employee's stock option agreements, Employee's unvested
shares at option shall vest automatically when terminated if he is terminated by
TSC other than for Serious Misconduct."

Technology Solutions Company                       Jack N. Hayden


By: /s/  JOHN T. KOHLER                         /s/  JACK N. HAYDEN
   ---------------------                        ---------------------

Position: CEO                                   Date:  10/5/99
         ---------------                              ---------------

Date: 10/4/99
      ------------------
No. 107.

#### Solomon F. Williams, administrator, plaintiff in error, *vs.*David A. Philpot and another, defendants.

[1.] If the answer swears off the equity of the bill, a verdict for the defendant ought to stand, unless the answer is contradicted by more evidence than that of a single witness.

In Equity, in Heard Superior Court. Tried before Judge Bull, May Term, 1855.

This bill was filed by Williams.as administrator of Oliver M. Porter, against David Philpot, and set forth that said intestate, when in life, became security for one Green B. Mcj *568Donald on fourteen promissory notes of thirty dollars each,, to the said Philpot.

The bill charged, that the money was loaned to McDonald' at usurious interest; and also, that after the giving the notes, Philpot took a deed from McDonald for certain lots of land; and in consideration thereof, agreed to wait with said notes until he could sell said land, and apply the proceeds to the payment thereof. The bill charged that Philpot had now sued the complainant in the Justice’s Court, and that he had no means of proving portions of his defence, except by a resort to the conscience of defendant. The bill prayed injunction, discovery and relief.

The answer of defendant denied the usury, and denied any contract with McDonald to give him time on said notes.

There was also a charge in the bill, that complainant had: given notice to Philpot to sue on said notes, which he had' failed to do within the time prescribed by the Statute. The answer deniedjjany such notice.

On the trial, complainant proved the giving the deed from McDonald to Philpot, and an agreement between them that Philpot would sell the same and apply the proceeds to said notes.

Green B. McDonald testified: That the agreement was,, that Philpot|would sell the land and apply the proceeds to the notos; and also, that ho would indulge McDonald on said notes, until he'’could make the sale.

The Court charged the Jury, that if they believed from the evidence, that any change had been made in the original contract, by which time had been given or additional security taken, they|must find for complainant.

The Jury found for defendant; whereupon, complainant moved for a new trial, on the ground that the Jury found contrary to the charge of the Court, and contrary to equity and to the evidence in the cause.

The motion for a new trial was overruled by the Court; and on this decision error is assigned.

*569G. J. Wright, for plaintiff in error.

Mabry,' for defendants.

*By the Court.*

Benning, J.

delivering the opinion.

[1.] Was the Court below right in refusing a new trial ? The answer positively denies the equity of the bill; and an answer is good until met by the evidence of two witnesses,, or of one aided by circumstances.

In this case the answer was met by the evidence of McDonald only — by the evidence of but -a single witness.

We cannot say, therefore, that we think the Court was. wrong in refusing a new trial.
#### Goodtitle, on the Demise of Cook, *v.*Cummins.

That part of a sheriff’s return to an execution of his having sold certain land, which names the day of sale, is not material, and may be contradicted by parol evidence.

*180A purchaser of real estate for value without notice is not affected hy the notice to his grantor.

ERROR to the *Noble*Circuit Court.

Blackford, J.

Ejectment for a tract of land in the county of *Noble.*Plea, not guilty. Verdict for the defendant; motion for a new trial overruled; and judgment on the verdict.

On the trial, the plaintiff proved a judgment rendered in 1838 in favour of one *Fury*against the defendant, and a *fieri facias*issued on the judgment, with a return stating that the sheriff had, on the *1st of February,*1839, levied on the land in question, and had sold the same to *Howe*on the *9th of the same month.*He read in evidence the sheriff’s deed to *Howe*for said land, which recited that the sale had been made on the *9th of April,*1839; and he introduced, also, a deed for the land to his lessor from *Howe.*The plaintiff offered to prove, by the deputy sheriff who made said return to the execution, that the sale was in fact made on the *9th of April,*1839; that the statement in the return, that the sale wras made on the *9th of February,*1839, was a mistake; and that it should have been that it was made on the *9th of April,*1839. This evidence was objected to and the objection was sustained.

We think the evidence of the mistake was admissible. That part of the return to the execution which names the day of the sale was not a material part of the return, *Simonds*v. *Catlin,*2 Caines’ R. 61, and could not therefore be conclusive as to the time of the sale. Whether a material part of the return could be contradicted by parol evidence, we have not examined.

The Court instructed the jury, that if they believed from the evidence that twenty days’ notice of the sheriff’s sale had not been given, and that *Howe*was the attorney who obtained the judgment, and purchased the land at the sheriff’s sale, they should find for the defendant. This instruction is wrong. Supposing *Howe to*have been a purchaser with notice, his grantee, the plaintiff’s lessor, was, for any thing shown, a purchaser for value without notice; and such a pur*181chaser is not affected by the notice to his grantor. 1 Story’s Eq., 4th ed., 437 (1).

*J. B. Howe,*for the plaintiff.

*D. H. Colerich*and *W. H. Coo'mbs,*for the defendant.

*Per Curiam.*

The judgment is reversed with costs. Cause remanded, &c.

(1)

 And a person with notice of an equitable claim, may safely purchase of a person who bought *Iona fide,*and without notice of it. 2 Sugd. Vend. 274. — 1 Story’s Eq. 438.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 209 (Friday, October 29, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 66792]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-27371]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Cooperative Research Group on Clean Diesel V

    Notice is hereby given that, on October 7, 2010, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Southwest Research 
Institute--Cooperative Research Group on Clean Diesel V (``Clean Diesel 
V'') has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney 
General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its 
membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending 
the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to 
actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, BP 
International Limited, Sunbury-on-Thames, Middlesex, UNITED KINGDOM, 
has been added as a party to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and Clean Diesel V intends to file 
additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
    On January 10, 2008, Clean Diesel V filed its original notification 
pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice 
published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of 
the Act on February 25, 2008 (73 FR 10064).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on December 10, 
2009. A notice was published in the Federal Register on January 27, 
2010 (75 FR 4422).

Patricia A. Brink,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2010-27371 Filed 10-28-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-41-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                       3,789,766
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                       4,800,000
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 42,498,823
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                       4,571,790
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                         4,573,000
<LOANS>                                     88,006,518
<ALLOWANCE>                                  1,363,456
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             149,541,465
<DEPOSITS>                                 126,959,245
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          1,483,212
<LONG-TERM>                                  8,544,070
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        12,885
<OTHER-SE>                                  12,810,962
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             149,541,465
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              1,996,945
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              621,525
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               116,776
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             2,735,246
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           1,330,574
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,481,696
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        1,253,550
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   30,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              1,069,690
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                443,443
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     299,585
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   299,585
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .22
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.62
<LOANS-NON>                                    280,673
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             1,335,024
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    9,716
<RECOVERIES>                                     8,148
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            1,363,456
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         1,226,759
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        136,697
        

</TABLE>
---

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
ANDPRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Rudijanto Azali, President and Chief Executive
Officer of WorldStar Energy, Corp., and Michael Kinley, Chief Financial Officer
of WorldStar Energy, Corp., each hereby certifies, 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 on Form 10-K of WorldStar Energy Corp. for the year ended
March 31, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained in the
Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the
financial condition and results of operations of WorldStar Energy Corp.

Date: September 22, 2011

|By: | /s/ Rudijanto Azali                         | 
|--- | ------------------------------------------- | 
|    | Rudijanto Azali                             | 
|    | President and Chief Executive
      Officer | 
|    |                                             | 
|    |                                             | 
|By: | /s/ Michael Kinley                          | 
|    | Michael Kinley                              | 
|    | Chief Financial Officer                     | 



A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signatures that appear in typed form within the electronic version 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.

---
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

January 8, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

HERMAN BARNES, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

N. GIADBACH; D. ALLRED; R.

WILEY; M. NAILEY; H. WATTS,

Defendants - Appellees.

No. 09-1400

(D.C. No. 1:09-CV-02038-ZLW)

ORDER

The captioned appeal is dismissed for lack of prosecution pursuant 10th Cir. R. 3.3(B)

and 10th Cir. R. 42.1.

A copy of this order shall stand as and for the mandate of this court.

Entered for the Court,

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

Appellate Case: 09-1400 Document: 01018344420 Date Filed: 01/08/2010 Page: 1
# Sitemap

## June 02, 2014

- Home
- Sitemap
- 2014
- 06
- June 02, 2014

            - Astronaut Steve Swanson Performs CDRA Maintenance
            - Venice Lagoon, Italy
            - Venice Lagoon
            - NASA Fire Rescue Training Focuses on Safe Helicopter Evacuations
            - NASA’s ‘Flying Saucer’ Readies for First Test Flight
            - NASA Talk: A History of Being Roomies with the Russians on ISS
            - HS3 People: Ramesh Kakar, Weather Focus Area Leader
            - HS3 People: Ramesh Kakar, Weather Focus Area Leader
            - How Does This Garden Grow?
Order filed April 14, 2016

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 16

- 00221

- CV

____________ BANDALI DAHDAH , Appellant

V. NADIM ZABNEH, BASIMA ZABANEH, MICHAEL BAL LASES , Appellee s

On Appeal from the 270th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2015

- 62064



### ORDER

A ppellant filed a notice of appeal in this case purporting to appeal the trial court’s order to pay costs in trial court cause number 2015

- 62064 . Our records do

not reflect a final appealable judgment in cause number 2015

- 62064

. The clerk’s record has not been filed in this appeal. To determine our jurisdiction over this appeal, and if jurisdiction exists, whether appellant is entitledto proceed without the advance payment of costs, we issue the follo wing order for a

partial clerk’s record.

We order the Harris County District Clerk to file a partial clerk’s record with
the clerk of this court on or before May 16, 2016

. In order that this court may ascertain its jurisdiction over the appeal, the partial clerk’s record shall contain (1) the judgment being appealed; (2) any motion for new trial, other post

- judgment motion, or request for findings of fact and conclusions of law; and (3) the notice of appeal. In addition, the partial clerk’s record shall con tain: (4) appellant’s affidavit of indigence; (5) the contest(s) to the affidavit of indigence, if any; (6) the trial court’s order ruling on any contest; (7) any other documents pertaining to the claim of indigence and the contests thereto.

PER CURIAM
#### Clifton and Others *v.*The State.—In error.

Saturday, *November*23.

AN indictment charged the defendant with stealing several articles of personal property, and alleged their aggregate value to be 250 dollars, but did not specify the separate value of any one article. Plea, not guilty. Verdict of guilty, and judgment accordingly. Motion in arrest of judgment, be*225cause the specific value of each article charged to have been stolen was not alleged in the indictment. *Held,*that motion could not be sustained. The defendant was convicted of stealing all the things mentioned in the indictment: in such case, the statement of one value to all the articles stolen is sufficient. 3 Bac. Abr. 560.
#### Fulk *v.*Fulk.—In error.

BILL of complaint in the Circuit Court by a husband against his wife for a divorce. The bill charged the defendant with adultery and other misconduct. The answer denied the charge, and alleged that the complainant had received personal property belonging to the defendant of the value of 200 dollars. The Court, upon the evidence, decreed a divorce, and provided by the decree that the complainant should pay to the defendant 100 dollars in certain payments, and that he should pay the costs of the suit. The record did not set out the evidence. The allowance to the defendant was assigned as error.

Decree affirmed with costs. R. S. 1843, pp. 604, 605.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1670 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1670

 To expand the Rest and Recuperation Leave program for members of the 
 Armed Forces serving in the Iraqi theater of operations in support of 
  Operation Iraqi Freedom to include travel and transportation to the 
                  members' permanent station or home.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 29, 2003

Mr. Dayton (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Johnson, and 
  Mr. Durbin) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
              referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To expand the Rest and Recuperation Leave program for members of the 
 Armed Forces serving in the Iraqi theater of operations in support of 
  Operation Iraqi Freedom to include travel and transportation to the 
                  members' permanent station or home.

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

SECTION 1. EXPANSION OF REST AND RECUPERATION LEAVE PROGRAM TO INCLUDE 
              TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION TO PERMANENT STATION OR HOME.

    (a) Expansion.--The Secretary of Defense shall expand the Central 
Command Rest and Recuperation Leave program to provide travel and 
transportation allowances to each member of the Armed Forces 
participating in the program in order to permit such member to travel 
at the expense of the United States from an original airport of 
debarkation to the permanent station or home of such member.
    (b) Allowances Authorized.--The travel and transportation 
allowances that may be provided under subsection (a) are the travel and 
transportation allowances specified in section 404(d) of title 37, 
United States Code.
    (c) Construction With Other Allowances.--Travel and transportation 
allowances provided for travel under subsection (a) are in addition to 
any other travel and transportation or other allowances that may be 
provided for such travel by law.
    (d) Definitions.--In this section:
            (1) The term ``Central Command Rest and Recuperation Leave 
        program'' means the Rest and Recuperation Leave program for 
        certain members of the Armed Forces serving in the Iraqi 
        theater of operations in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom as 
        established by the United States Central Command on September 
        25, 2003.
            (2) The term ``original airport of debarkation'' means an 
        airport designated as an airport of debarkation for members of 
        the Armed Forces under the Central Command Rest and 
        Recuperation Leave program as of the establishment of such 
        program on September 25, 2003.
                                 <all>
```