alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Converted by EDGARwiz


Exhibit 10.1







Matthew Marcus

1480 Newport Center Dr.

Irvine, CA 92612




                         December 28, 2006




Pioneer Consulting Group, Inc.

Silver Springs, Nevada




  Dear Sirs:




         I hereby agree to lend Pioneer Consulting Group, Inc, a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), up to $50,000 to the extent needed and requested by the Company.




         Such loans will be represented by promissory notes bearing interest at 6% per annum and due and payable in one year in lawful money of the United States of America at such address as the holder may   specify by written notice to the Company. In addition, such promissory notes shall include the following terms and conditions:




           -  The Company may, at its option, prepay the note in whole or in part without premium but with accrued interest;




           -  The holder, at its option, may make extensions of the time for payments of the indebtedness or accept a renewal note, all without notice, and the Company consents to such extensions or renewals, all without notice and agrees that any such action shall not release it from any liability thereunder;




-  In the event of default under the note, holder may take all actions in law and in equity to collect on the note and the Company agrees to pay the holder such further amount as shall be sufficient to cover the costs and expenses of collection, including without limitation, reasonable attorney's fees for all services rendered in that connection;




-  The Note may not be changed or terminated unless in writing and shall be construed and enforced according to the laws of the State of California.




                                      Very truly yours,




                                      /s/ Matthew Marcus

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

                                      Matthew Marcus
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 Quarterly Report
of Cistera Networks, Inc. on Form 10-QSB/A, as amended, for the period ending
December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the “Report”), I, Derek Downs, Chief Executive 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, to the best of my knowledge
and belief:





(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/    Derek
P. Downs


Derek P.
Downs


Chief
Executive Officer





(Principal
Executive Officer and interim


Principal
Financial and Accounting Officer)





October
17, 2008








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

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 856 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to extend the minimum 

medicare deadlines for filing claims to take into account delay in processing adjustments from secondary payor status to primary payor status. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 20, 2005 

Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself and Mr. DURBIN) introduced the following 

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to extend 

the minimum medicare deadlines for filing claims to take 

into account delay in processing adjustments from secondary payor status to primary payor status. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ADJUSTMENT IN MINIMUM MEDICARE CLAIMS 

4 FILING DEADLINES TO ACCOUNT FOR DELAY 

5 IN PROCESSING ADJUSTMENTS FROM SEC6 ONDARY TO PRIMARY PAYOR STATUS. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Sections 1814(a)(1) and 

8 1835(a)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
2 

•S 856 IS

1 1395f(a)(1), 1395n(a)(1)) are each amended by inserting 

2 ‘‘(but, in the case of items and services furnished to an 

3 individual during the period beginning on the date the in4 dividual’s status under section 1862(b)(2) changes from 

5 having a group health plan that is a primary plan to no 

6 longer having such a health plan that is a primary plan 

7 and ending on the date of completion of the change of 

8 status, ending no earlier than 1 year after the date of com9 pletion of the change of status)’’ after ‘‘1 calendar year’’. 

10 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—(1) The amendments made 

11 by subsection (a) shall apply to items and services fur12 nished on or after January 1, 1987, and before August 

13 11, 1993. 

14 (2) In the case of claims for items and services de15 scribed in the matter inserted by the amendments made 

16 by subsection (a) and furnished on or after January 1, 

17 1987, and before August 11, 1993, notwithstanding any 

18 other provision of law, the deadline for submission of such 

19 claims under parts A and B of title XVIII of the Social 

20 Security Act shall in no case expire before the end of the 

21 1-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of 

22 this Act. 

Æ
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 21
                          Subsidiaries of the Company


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                              Doing Business
Subsidiary                             State of Incorporation            under the Following Names
----------                             ----------------------            -------------------------

<S>                                    <C>                             <C>
Sign Builders of
    America, Inc.                            Delaware                  Sign Builders of America, Inc.

Diamond Tech One, Inc.                       Delaware                  Diamond Tech One, Inc

SDI Acquisition Corp.                        Texas                     SDI Acquisition Corp.

Plasmatron Coatings and                                                Plasmatron Coatings and
     Systems, Inc.                           Pennsylvania                   Systems, Inc.

Field Emission Picture
     Element Technology, Inc.                Delaware                  FEPET, Inc.

Electronic Billboard                                                   Electronic Billboard
     Technology, Inc.                        Delaware                       Technology, Inc.
</TABLE>


                                    Page 65
FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARVIN VERNIS SMITH,

Petitioner-Appellee,

v.

RAUL LOPEZ, Warden,

Respondent-Appellant.

No. 12-55860

D.C. No.

8:11-cv-01076-ODW-MRW

ORDER

On Remand From The United States Supreme Court

Filed August 21, 2015

Before: Sidney R. Thomas, Chief Judge, Andrew D.

Hurwitz, Circuit Judge, and Ralph R. Beistline,* Chief 

District Judge.

ORDER

In accordance with the Opinion of the Supreme Court in

Lopez v. Smith, 574 U.S. ___, 135 S. Ct. 1 (2014) (per

curiam), the judgment of the district court granting Smith’s

petition for a writ of habeas corpus is REVERSED, and the

matter is REMANDED for proceedings consistent with the

Supreme Court’s opinion.

* The Honorable Ralph R. Beistline, Chief District Judge for the U.S.

District Court for the District of Alaska, sitting by designation.
#### State v. Reber

Case below: 182 N.C. App. 250

No. 196P07

Def’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA06-594)

Denied 10/11/07
#### Mary B. COLEMAN, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Respondent.

No. 2006-3189.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

July 6, 2006.

Mary B. Coleman, pro se.

*ORDER*

Petitioner having paid the initial filing fee,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The order of dismissal issued June 29, 2006 is vacated, the mandate recalled, and the notice of appeal is reinstated.

(2) Respondent should compute the due date for filing its brief from the date of filing of this order.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"National Intelligence University","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.ni-u.edu","author_name":"ray.x.villarreal@odni.gov","author_url":"https:\/\/www.ni-u.edu\/author\/ray-x-villarrealodni-gov\/","title":"Schools","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"6ducjBLjDe\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.ni-u.edu\/schools\/\">Schools<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.ni-u.edu\/schools\/embed\/#?secret=6ducjBLjDe\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Schools” — National Intelligence University\" data-secret=\"6ducjBLjDe\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
#### Taylor *against*Betsford.

not5 deliberate ef^m It“'tjeu3r’yi 7nitha unitss wuh’the parties* be i cd from but must be made to appear affirmatively, otherwise the judgment wm be reversed.

IN ERROR, on *certiorari*to a justice’s court.

When the jury in the court below retired to deliberate upon their verdict, the justice, at the request of the jury, went into the room with them, to answer certain questions proposed to him by the jury, but was not accompanied by the parties, nor had obtained the consent of the plaintiff in error, who, however, knéw that the justice was going, and did not object to it. A ,, , . . , i i r i i verdict and mdgment were given in the court below tor the de- *- , J*° ® Cendant m error.

*Per Curiam.*

The only error necessary to be noticed in this case is, that the justice went into the room with the jury, at their request, privately and apart from the parties, to answer certain questions proposed to him by the jury. This we have repeatedly held t'o be erroneous, unless done with the consent of the parties. Whether the information given by the justice were material, or had any influence upon the verdict of the jury, is a matter which we will not inquire into. In the present case, it cannot fairly be inferred that the plaintiff in error gave his consent,unless from the circumstance that he knew that the justice was going in to the jury, and did not object. But this is not enough. The practice is dangerous and improper, and ought to be guarded against; and the consent ought riot to be matter of inference, as it may be liable to great abuse : it ought to appear affirmatively that it was done with the consent of parties. If they are present, it may be easily ascertained whether they will give it or not, and then the door will be shut against abuse, by reason of misunderstanding, or wrong conclusions drawn from circumstances ; and, upon this ground, the judgment must be reversed.

Judgment reversed.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 97 (Thursday, May 21, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 23890]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-11857]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-65, 615]


Temic Automotive of North America, Inc., Northbrook, IL; Notice 
of Termination of Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on March 17, 2009 in response to a petition 
filed by a company official on behalf of workers at Temic Automotive of 
North America, Inc., Northbrook, Illinois. The workers at the subject 
facility produce automotive electronic components.
    The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed in Washington, DC, this 28th day of April 2009.
Richard Church,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-11857 Filed 5-20-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
#### In the Matter of H.M., Appellant, v E.T., Respondent.

Submitted January 11, 2010;

decided January 14, 2010

Reported below, 65 AD3d 119.

Motion by New York City Bar Association for leave to appear amicus curiae on the appeal herein granted only to the extent that the proposed brief is accepted as filed. Two copies of the brief must be served and 24 copies filed within seven days.
Exhibit
31.1

CERTIFICATION



I,
Tom J. Berman, President and Chief Executive Officer of Nano Magic Inc, certify that: (1) I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1
to the annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2019 of Nano Magic Inc.; and (2) based on my knowledge, this
report does not contain any untrue statement of 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, misleading with respect to the period covered by this
report.



|Date:
    May 15, 2020 |                                                       
|---------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------
|                       |                                                       
|                       | /s/
    Tom J. Berman                                 
|                       | Tom
    J. Berman, President & Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 31.2

               CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14(A)/15D-14(A)
                     OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934


I, David L. Weinberg, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Columbia Laboratories,
Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors:

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: August 4, 2004


                                     /s/ David L. Weinberg
                                     ---------------------
                                     David L. Weinberg
                                     Chief Financial Officer
#### State v. Peterson

Case below: 179 N.C. App. 437

No. 547A06

1. Defs NOA (Dissent) (COA05-973)

2. Defs PDR as to Additional Issues

1. _

2. Denied 01/25/07
##### 



EXHIBIT 99.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of IEA Income Fund VIII (the
Registrant) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2002,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Dennis
J. Tietz, the President and Chief Executive Officer of Cronos Capital
Corp., the General Partner of the Registrant, certify, based on my
knowledge, that:



| | (i)  |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and                                 
| | ---- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| | (ii) |  | The information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operation of the Registrant.
|
| |      |  | November 14, 2002                                                                                                                                     

| |  |    |  |                                                                                                                                      
| |  | -- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  | By |  | /s/ Dennis J. Tietz

Dennis J. Tietz
President and Chief Executive Officer of Cronos Capital Corp.,
General Partner of the Registrant



---

|* |  | This certification, required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, other than as required by Section 906, shall not be deemed to be
filed with the Commission or subject to the rules and regulations
promulgated by the Commission under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, or to the liabilities of Section 18 of said Act.
|- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unassociated Document


    LOAN
      AGREEMENT

    (English
      Translation)

    


    This
      is
      an agreement between the following parties:

    

      
        	
                Party
                  A:

              	
                Diping
                  Zhou

              
	 	 
	
                Party
                  B:

              	
                Perfectenergy
                  (Shanghai), Ltd.

              


      

    

    


    The
      parties hereto enter into this agreement voluntarily, after friendly
      negotiations, to enable Party B to borrow money from Party A, as
      follows:

    


    
      	 	
              1.

            	
              To
                address Party B’s cash flow issue, Party A agrees to loan Party B Seven
                Hundred and Five Thousand RMB on August 30, 2006, to be repaid on
                January
                31, 2007.

            


    

    


    
      	 	
              2.

            	
              Party
                A agrees not to charge interest fees for this loan
                amount.

            


    

    


    
      	 	
              3.

            	
              Party
                B may repay the loan at any time prior to the above-stated repayment
                date.

            


    

    


    
      	 	
              4.

            	
              The
                parties hereto agree to resolve any disputes amicably.
                

            


    

    


    
      	 	
              5.

            	
              This
                agreement will be in two originals, with each party holding one.
                This
                agreement will be effective upon the parties’ signatures and
                stamps.

            


    

    

      
        	
                Party
                  A: 310101670618482

              	
                Party
                  B: Perfectenergy (Shanghai), Ltd.

              
	 	 
	
                Signature:
                  /s/ Diping Zhou

              	
                Signature:
                  

              
	 	 
	
                Seal:

              	
                Company
                  Seal:

              
	 	 
	
                Date:
                  8-26-2006