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 Amended Annual Report of Kallo Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A-1 for the year ended December 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the “report”), I, John Cecil, Chief Executive Officer 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated this 7th day of June, 2012.





JOHN CECILJohn CecilChief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
### IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 14

- 00278

- CR

ROBERT LANCE WATKINS

, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

, Appellee

From the 19th District Court McLennan County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013

- 284

- C1

A B A T E M E N T ORDER

The appellant’s brief is overdue in this appeal. The Clerk of the Court’s

December 11, 2014 letter to appellant’s counsel states:

Our records indicate that the appellant’s brief was due on or before
December 4, 2014. To date, no brief has been filed.

You will notice that the trial court has been copied with this letter as required by the Rules of Appella te Procedure. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.8(b)(2). Presumably, the purpose of notifying the trial court is to allow intervention by the trial court before the Court has to formally abate the proceeding for a hearing.Watkins v. State Page 2 Unless a brief or satisfactory response is re ceived within 14 days, this Court must abate the appeal and order the trial court to immediately conduct a hearing pursuant to T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.8(b)(2) & (3).

Because appellant’s brief was not filed within 14 days as required, w e abate this

appeal to the trial court to conduct any necessary hearings within 21 days of the date of

this o rder in accordance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.8(b)(2) and (3). T EX

.

R. A PP

. P . 38.8(b)(2), (3).

The supplemental clerk’s and reporter’s records required by the rule, if any, are

ordered to be filed within 3 5 days of the date of this Order. See id

.

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Appeal abated

Order issued and filed January 15, 2015 Do not publish
##### 



FORM 6-K SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549
 Report of Foreign Private Issuer Pursuant to Rule 13a-16 or 15d-16
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 For the month of July 2005 Commission File Number 1-14916 BROOKFIELD PROPERTIES CORPORATION  BCE Place
181 Bay Street
Suite 330
Toronto, Ontario
Canada M5J 2T3
(416) 369-2300
(Address of principal executive offices) Indicate by check mark whether the registrant files or will file annual reports under cover of Form
20-F or Form 40-F. Form 20-F o
    
    Form 40-F þ
 Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper as permitted by
Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(1): Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper as permitted by
Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(7): Indicate by check mark whether by furnishing the information contained in this Form, the registrant
is also thereby furnishing the information to the Commission pursuant to Rule 12g3-2(b) under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Yes o
    
    No þ
 If Yes is marked, indicate below the file number assigned to the registrant in connection with
Rule 12g3-2(b): 82-




---



##### 



DOCUMENTS FILED AS PART OF THIS FORM 6-K See the Exhibit Index to this Form 6-K. SIGNATURES Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly
caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized. Date: July 7, 2005. Brookfield Properties CorporationBy:
/s/ Craig J. LaurieTitle: Craig J. LaurieName:
Senior Vice President & Chief
Financial Officer




---



##### 



EXHIBIT LIST Exhibit
    
    Description99.1
    
    Press Release dated July 7, 2005
Form of Common Stock certificate



 Exhibit 4.2 
  



 
 NUMBER 
 DDUP 
 datadomain 
 INCORPORATED UNDER THE 
 LAWS OF THE STATE 
 OF DELAWARE 
 SHARES 
 SEE REVERSE FOR CERTAIN DEFINITIONS 
 CUSIP 23767P 10 9 
 This certifies that 
 is the record holder of 
 FULLY PAID AND NONASSESSABLE SHARES OF COMMON STOCK, $0.0001 PAR VALUE, OF 
 Data Domain, Inc. 
 transferable on the books of the corporation in person or by duly authorized attorney upon surrender of this Certificate properly endorsed. This Certificate is not valid until countersigned by the Transfer Agent and registered by the
Registrar. 
 WITNESS the facsimile seal of the Corporation and the facsimile signatures of its duly authorized officers.

 Dated: 
 President & Chief Executive Officer 
 Secretary 
 COUNTERSIGNED AND REGISTERED: 
 WELLS FARGO BANK, N. A. 
 TRANSFER AGENT AND REGISTRAR 
 BY: 
 AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE 







 

 
  
 The Corporation shall
furnish without charge to each stockholder who so requests a statement of the powers, designations, preferences and relative, participating, optional or other special rights of each class of stock of the Corporation or series thereof and the
qualifications, limitations or restrictions of such preferences and/or rights. Such requests shall be made to the Corporation 
 The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this certificate, shall be construed as though they were written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations: 
 TEN COM - as tenants in common TE NENT - as tenants by the entireties JT TEN - as joint tenants with right of 
 survivorship and not as tenants 
 in common COM PROP - as community property 
 UNIF GIFT MIN ACT - Custodian 
 (Cust) (Minor) 
 under Uniform Gifts to Minors 
 Act (State) 
 UNIF TRF MIN ACT - Custodian (until age ) (Cust) 
 under Uniform Transfers (Minor) 
 to Minors Act 
 (State) 
 Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list. 
 FOR VALUE RECEIVED, hereby sell(s),
assign(s) and transfer(s) unto 
 PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE 
 (PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS, INCLUDING ZIP CODE, OF ASSIGNEE) 
 shares 
 of
the capital stock represented by within Certificate, and do hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint 
 attorney-in-fact

 to transfer the said stock on the books of the within named Corporation with full power of the substitution in the
premises. 
 Dated 
 NOTICE: THE SIGNATURE TO THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME AS WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF THE CERTIFICATE IN EVERY PARTICULAR, WITHOUT ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT OR ANY CHANGE WHATSOEVER. 
 Signature(s) Guaranteed: 
 By 
 THE SIGNATURE(S) SHOULD BE GUARANTEED BY AN ELIGIBLE GUARANTOR INSTITUTION, (BANKS, STOCKBROKERS,
SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS AND CREDIT UNIONS WITH MEMBERSHIP IN AN APPROVED SIGNATURE GUARANTEE MEDALLION PROGRAM), PURSUANTTO S.E.C. RULE 17Ad-15. GUARANTEES BY ANOTARY PUBLIC ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE. SIGNATURE GUARANTEES MUST NOT BE DATED.
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, R. V. Bailey, certify that:

1.      I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Aspen Exploration Corporation;

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(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:

a)      designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, 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)      designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

c)      evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

d)      disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;

5.      The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, 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 and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b)      any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.
AURORA LOAN SERVICES *A Lehman Brothers Company*Depositor: Structured Asset Securities Corporation 745 Seventh Avenue 8th Floor New York, NY 10019 Trustee:   U.S. Bank National Association  One Federal Street 3rd Floor  Boston, MA 02110 Securities Administrator: Subject: Annual Officer's Certification Fiscal Year:   2007 Securitization:  GPMF 2007-AR1 I, E. Todd Whittemore, the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Aurora Loan Services LLC (the "Master Servicer"), do certify the following for the Calendar Year 2007: A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period beginning on the cut-off date and ending on December 31, 2007 (the "reporting period") and of its performance under the Agreement for such period has been made under my supervision. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material aspects throughout such reporting period. Certified by: AURORA LOAN SERVICES LLC By: /s/ E. Todd Whittemore N a m e :  E .   T o d d   W h i t t e m o r e  Title: Executive Vice President
#### Turner v. Ellis

Case below: 179 N.C. App. 357

No. 537P06

Defs PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA05-1527)

Denied 03/08/07

Hudson, J., Recused
#### State v. Watkins

Case below: 169 N.C. App. 518

No. 119A07

1. Def’s NOA Based Upon a Constitutional Question (COA04-295-2)

2. AG’s Motion to Dismiss Appeal

1. _

2. Allowed 06/27/07

Hudson, J., Recnsed
Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed May 23, 2024.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-24-00077-CV

MARIA LOPEZ, Appellant

V.

8601 BROADWAY MANAGEMENT CO LLC, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 4

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1216735

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This appeal is from a judgment signed January 25, 2024. The court reporter 

indicated on March 28, 2024 that there was no reporter’s record. The clerk’s record 

was filed April 3, 2024. No brief was filed.

On May 6, 2024, we issued a notice stating that unless appellant filed a brief 

along with a motion requesting an extension of time on or before May 16, 2024, the 

appeal was subject to dismissal without further notice for want of prosecution. See

Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).

Appellant filed no brief or other response. We dismiss the appeal.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jewell, Zimmerer, and Hassan.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         156,529
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  257,433
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,098,181
<PP&E>                                          49,563
<DEPRECIATION>                                  22,117
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             105,323,021
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       69,234,482
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       230,583
<OTHER-SE>                                  28,362,054
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               105,323,021
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               670,409
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,316,989
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (724,954)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   118,118
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             22,676
<DISCONTINUED>                                 460,320
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   482,996
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .02


</TABLE>
948 A.2d 1263

#### ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND, Petitioner, v. Bernadette M. WILBON, Respondent.

Misc. Docket AG No. 56,

Sept. Term, 2007.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

May 28, 2008.

*ORDER*

The Court of Appeals of Maryland, having considered the Joint Petition of the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland and the Respondent, Bernadette M. Wilbon, to indefinitely suspend the Respondent from the practice of law in the State of Maryland with the right to apply for reinstatement no sooner than eighteen (18) months, it is this 28th day of May, 2008,

ORDERED, that the Joint Petition be, and it is hereby, granted, and the Respondent, Bernadette M. Wilbon, is suspended by consent from the practice of law in the State of Maryland effective June 5, 2008; and it is further

ORDERED, that the Respondent, Bernadette M. Wilbon, shall apply for reinstatement no sooner than eighteen (18) months from the date of this Order; and it is further

ORDERED, that the Clerk of this Court shall strike the name of Bernadette M. Wilbon from the register of attorneys in this Court, and, pursuant to Maryland Rule 16-772(d), shall certify to the Trustees of the Client Protection Fund of the Bar of Maryland and the clerks of all judicial tribunals in the State that the name of Bernadette M. Wilbon has been so stricken.
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,

J ustices

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.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk September 26, 2011

t0919 

# Order

September 26, 2011

143183

DONALD McCOLE a nd DEBRA McCOLE, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v SC: 143183 COA: 294362 Ingham CC: 07-001065-NO INDUSTRIAL FINISHING TECHNOLOGIES, INC., STEVEN M AURER, DETROIT INDUSTRIAL SYSTEMS, INC., and INDUSTRIAL COATING EQUIPMENT, INC., Defendants, and

DEMMER CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 28, 2011 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
NO. 07-02-0112-CV

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL D

	MAY 15, 2002

	______________________________

	JOHN JOSEPH HINDERA

			Appellant

	v.

	NELSON DOMETRIUS

			Appellee

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 237TH DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;

	NO. 99-507,408; HON. SAM MEDINA, PRESIDING

	_______________________________

	ORDER OF ABATEMENT

	_______________________________

Before BOYD, C.J., and QUINN and REAVIS, JJ.

	John Joseph Hindera  (appellant) appeals the February 1, 2001 judgment of the 237th District Court of Lubbock County in favor of appellee.  Subsequent to the filing of the notice of appeal, this court received notice from appellant’s counsel that he had filed a voluntary petition as debtor under Chapter 7 of the United States Bankruptcy Code.  Said notice included a file-marked copy of said petition.  Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362, any further action in this appeal is automatically stayed.  

	Under these circumstances, and for administrative purposes, this appeal is removed from the docket of this Court and abated.  The appeal will be reinstated upon proper motion showing that the stay has been lifted or that the Court may otherwise proceed with the disposition of the cause.

	Accordingly, the appeal is abated.

							Per Curiam

Do not publish.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael Figueroa, Appellant.

Submitted April 27, 2009;

decided April 30, 2009

Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Richard M. Greenberg, Esq., Office of the Appellate Defender, 11 Park Place, Suite 1601, New York, NY 10007 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.
N OTE : This o rder is non precedential.


# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________
ECHO WESTLEY DIXON, Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES, Defendant

- Appellee.

______________________

2014

- 5056

______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:13

- cv

- 00843

- NBF, Judge Nancy B. Fir estone.

______________________

ON MOTION

______________________

P ER C URIAM

.

O R D E R

Echo Westley Dixon moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Dixon also moves to supplement his informal brief.

Dixon is currently incarcerated. Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), a prisoner is barred from proceeding in forma pauperis if three or more prior Case: 14-5056 Document: 15 Page: 1 Filed: 04/17/2014DIXON v. US 2

actions or appeals have been dismissed as frivolous or malicious or for failure to state a claim. Section 1915(g) of 28 U.S.C. states:

In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a judgment in a civil action or proceeding under this section if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or d etained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to sate a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious phy sical injury.

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

The court notes that three or more actions or appeals filed by Dixon have been dismissed as frivolous, mal icious, or for failure to state a claim. See Dixon v. Grant

, No. 08

- CV

- 7364 , ECF No. 16, 17 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 17, 2 010). Moreover, Dixon has not suggested that he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury. Thus, Dixon is barred by statute from proceeding in forma pauperis in this appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

Accordingly,

I T I S O RDERED T HAT : (1 ) If Di xon does not pay the $ 505 filing fee within 30 days of the date of this order, his appeal will be dismissed.

(2) Dixon’s motion to supplement his informal brief is granted.

F OR THE C OURT

/s/ Daniel E. O’Toole Daniel E. O’Toole Clerk of Court Case: 14-5056 Document: 15 Page: 2 Filed: 04/17/2014DIXON v. US 3

s24 Case: 14-5056 Document: 15 Page: 3 Filed: 04/17/2014
#### Jamaica Hospital Medical Center, Inc., et al., Appellants, v Oxford Health Plans (NY), Inc., et al., Respondents.

[871 NYS2d 665]

*687In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiffs appeal from (1) so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kitzes, J.), dated January 24, 2007, as granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was to compel arbitration, and (2) so much of an order of the same court dated May 24, 2007, as denied that branch of their motion which was to voluntarily discontinue the action, without prejudice, pursuant to CPLR 3217 (b).

Ordered that the orders are affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs to the respondents.

The Supreme Court properly determined that the plaintiffs’ claims, as alleged in the amended complaint, all arise from or relate to their contracts with the defendants and, therefore, are within the scope of the broad arbitration provisions contained within those contracts (see *M.H. Kane Constr. Corp. v URS Corp. Group Consultants,*42 AD3d 512, 513 [2007]; *Vitals986, Inc. v Healthwave, Inc.,*15 AD3d 571 [2005]). Although the plaintiffs allege fraud, it is not the type that permeates the agreements in their entirety so as to invalidate the arbitration clauses as well *(see Matter of Weinrott [Carp],*32 NY2d 190 [1973]; *Riverside Capital Advisors, Inc. v Winchester Global Trust Co. Ltd.,*21 AD3d 887, 889 [2005]; *Cologne Reins. Co. of Am. v Southern Underwriters,*218 AD2d 680, 681 [1995]). Moreover, this dispute is arbitrable as its subject matter does not violate a statute, decisional law, or public policy *(compare Matter of City of Long Beach v Civil Serv. Empls. Assn., Inc.—Long Beach Unit,*8 NY3d 465, 470 [2007]).

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs’ motion to voluntarily discontinue the action without prejudice *(see Tucker v Tucker,*55 NY2d 378, 383 [1982]). The record supports a finding that the plaintiffs were merely attempting to circumvent the prior order compelling arbitration *(see Kaplan v Village of Ossining,*35 AD3d 816, 817 [2006]; *Schachter v Royal Ins. Co. of Am.,*21 AD3d 1024 [2005]; *Venture I, Inc. v Voutsinas,*8 AD3d 475 [2004]). Skelos, J.R, Dillon, McCarthy and Eng, JJ., concur.