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


     The  undersigned  hereby  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
undersigned's  best knowledge and belief,  the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for
the Geodyne  Energy Income  Limited  Partnership II-A  ("Issuer") for the period
ending  June 30, 2007  as  filed  with  the  Securities and Exchange  Commission
on the date hereof (the "Report"):

      (a)   fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
            the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
      (b)   the  information  contained in the Report  fairly  presents,  in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Issuer.

      Dated this 20th day of August, 2007.

                                    GEODYNE ENERGY INCOME LIMITED
                                    PARTNERSHIP II-A
                                    ("Issuer")

                                    //s// Dennis R. Neill
                                    -----------------------------------
                                    Dennis R. Neill
                                    President (Chief Executive Officer)

                                    //s// Craig D. Loseke
                                    -----------------------------------
                                    Craig D. Loseke
                                    Chief Accounting Officer
                                    (Chief Financial Officer)


      A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906 has
been  furnished to Geodyne  Energy Income Limited  Partnership  II-A and will be
retained by Geodyne Energy Income Limited Partnership  II-A and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Pawel Czernicki, Appellant, v Marek Lawniczak, Respondent.

Submitted April 8, 2013;

decided May 7, 2013

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
EXHIBIT 10.2

   

 EXHIBIT 10.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 SECOND AMENDMENT TO PROMISSORY NOTE
 

 DELTA GROUP INVESTMENTS LIMITED
 

 

 

 The following terms set forth the second amendment to the Promissory Note dated January 26, 2011 between Delta Group Investments Limited (the Holder) and Entia Biosciences, Inc. (the Company).
 

 WHEREAS, on January 26, 2011 the Holder and the Company entered into a Promissory Note in the principal amount of $312,500, with interest to accrue at 5% per annum and a maturity date of June 30, 2012 (the Note);
 

 WHEREAS, in conjunction with the issuance of the Note on January 26, 2011, the Holder was also issued a five year warrant to purchase 60,000 shares at an exercise price of $1.20 per share;
 

 WHEREAS, on June 13, 2012 the Holder and the Company entered into the Amendment to Promissory Note pursuant to which the Holder agreed to extend the maturity date of the January 26, 2011 Promissory Note to June 30, 2013 in return for an increase in the interest rate from 5% to 6%, a reduction in the conversion price of the Note into shares of common stock of Entia Biosciences, Inc. from $0.60 per share to $0.45 per share, the reduction of the exercise price of the five year warrant to purchase 60,000 shares from $1.20 per share to $0.45 per share, and the Company issued a new five year warrant to purchase 108,750 shares with an exercise price of $0.45 per share.
 

 WHEREAS, the total amount due under the Note as of June 30, 2013 is $353,510, with $22,260 in interest accrued at 5% per annum between January 26, 2011 and June 30, 2012 and $18,750 in interest accrued at 6% per annum between July 1, 2012 and June 30, 2013, added to the principal amount of the Note of $312,500.
 

 

 NOW, THEREFOR, the Holder and the Company agree as follows:
 

  1.

  The term of the Note shall be extended for an additional year to June 30, 2014.
  2.

 Interest payable on the Note shall accrue at 8% per annum from June 30, 2013.
 


  
 
  
  
 3.

 The Company shall issue a three year warrant to purchase 200,000 shares of common stock to Holder, with an exercise price of $0.45 per share.
  4.

 The expiration date of all Entia warrants held by Holder and described above shall be extended to June 30, 2017.
 

 

 ENTIA BIOSCIENCES, INC.
 

 

 

 /s/ Marvin S. Hausman, M.D.
 Marvin S. Hausman, M.D.
 President, CEO and Chairman
 

 Date: July 3, 2013
 

 ACCEPTED BY:
 DELTA GROUP INVESTMENTS LIMITED
 

 

 

 /s/ Edward Wong
 Edward Wong, Director
 

 Date:  July 1, 2013
Motion Granted in Part and Denied in Part; Appeal Dismissed and

Memorandum Opinion filed January 8, 2013.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 12

- 01002

- CV

RANDI HOUSTON AND CH ASITY BLANKS , Appellant s
V.

STRUNK BROS. IN ITS PARTNERSHIP , ASSUME OR COMMON NAM E, W.R. STRUNK, HENRY O . STRUNK AND MANUEL RENDON , Appellee s

On Appeal from the 25th District Court Colorado County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 22,853

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This is an attempted appeal from an order in the trial court granting appellees’ motion to compel and request for sanctions. A ppellees filed a motion to dismiss the appeal and request for damages under Texas Rule of Appellate
Procedure 45 because the order is interlocutory and not appealable. Ap pellants2

filed a response in which they alleged that appellate courts have mandamus jurisdiction over sanctions orders such as the one made the subject of this appeal

.
The record demonstrates there is no appealable order and therefore this court lacks ju risdiction

. Accordingly, the motion is granted in part and the appeal is
ordered dismissed for want of jurisdiction

. W e express no opinion regarding

a vailability of mandamus review. Appellees’ request for damages under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 45 is denied.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Frost, Christopher, and Jamison.
Order entered February 23, 2021

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-01388-CV

TARSHA HARDY, Appellant

V.

COMMUNICATION WORKERS OF AMERICA, INC., CWA LOCAL 6215 

AFL-CIO, COMMUNICATION WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO, 

BONNIE MATHIAS, Appellees

On Appeal from the 14th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-15-04027

ORDER

I voluntarily recuse myself from hearing any matter in the above appeal.

/s/ ROBBIE PARTIDA-KIPNESS 

JUSTICE
#### CALVIN v. WEST COAST POWER CO. et al.

No. 467.

District Court, D. Oregon.

Nov. 24, 1941.

*249Gus L. Thacker, of Chehalis, Wash., for plaintiff.

James A. Powers, of Portland, Or., for defendant West Coast Power Co.

John Reilly, Hugh Biggs, and Arthur C. Spencer, all of Portland, Or., for other defendants.

JAMES ALGER FEE, District Judge.

The court has labored to discover and determine the issues which the parties in this case have attempted to present and has been unable to do so. The difficulty arises from the fact that there has been no clear conception on either side as to what were the contentions of the other. A notable instance is the fact that defendants Alaska Junk Company did not discover until the reply brief of plaintiff was filed that plaintiff claimed not to be proceeding upon the Washington Workmen’s Compensation Act in itself, Rem.Rev.Stat.Wash. § 7673 et seq., but upon an adoption therein of the provisions of the Washington wrongful death statute.

The difficulties encountered are inherent in the pre-trial order submitted by agreement of all the parties. The court approved the order, but upon close study thereof in connection with the briefs now on file the court discovers that the contentions of the parties do not meet squarely. There were no specific questions either of fact or law formulated in the order. Consequently, if an attempt were made to answer questions which the court might formulate, confusion would arise.

Although the court regrets the delay which will be occasioned, the court sets aside the pre-trial order signed May 22, 1941, and directs that another pre-trial conference be held December 2, 1941, and that as soon as a pre-trial order be formulated the trial follow.
Exhibit 21.1

                        SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

The following entities,  unless otherwise indicated,  are wholly-owned direct or
indirect subsidiaries of the Registrant as of December 31, 1999:
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                      State or Country
      Name                                            of Organization
      ----                                            ----------------
<S>   <C>                                             <C>

 1.   Baker Environmental, Inc.                       Pennsylvania
 2.   Baker Heavy & Highway, Inc.                     Pennsylvania
 3.   Baker Mellon Stuart Construction, Inc.          Pennsylvania
 4.   Mellon Stuart Building Services, Inc.           Pennsylvania
 5.   Mellon Stuart Construction International, Inc.  Pennsylvania
 6.   Michael Baker Development Corporation           Pennsylvania
 7.   Michael Baker Global, Inc.                      Pennsylvania
 8.   Michael Baker Jr., Inc.                         Pennsylvania
 9.   Michael Baker Alaska, Inc.                      Alaska
10.   Baker Construction, Inc.                        Delaware
11.   Baker Global Project Services, Inc.             Delaware
12.   Baker Holding Corporation                       Delaware
13.   Baker/OTS, Inc.                                 Delaware
14.   International Pipeline Services, Inc.           Delaware
15.   Michael Baker International, Inc.               Delaware
16.   Baker GeoResearch, Inc.                         District of Columbia
17.   Baker Engineering, Inc.                         Illinois
18.   Steen Production Service, Inc.                  Louisiana
19.   Michael Baker Jr. Company                       Nevada
20.   Michael Baker Architects/Engineers, P.C.        New Jersey
21.   Baker Engineering NY, Inc.                      New York
22.   Baker/MO Services, Inc.                         Texas
23.   Baker Support Services, Inc.                    Texas
24.   Vermont General Insurance Company               Vermont
25.   Michael Baker Barbados Ltd.                     Barbados
26.   Baker O&M International, Ltd.                   Cayman Islands
27.   Baker/OTS International, Inc.                   Cayman Islands
28.   Overseas Technical Services (Middle East) Ltd.  Cayman Islands
29.   Michael Baker de Mexico S.A. de C.V.            Mexico
30.   OTS International Training Services Ltd.        United Kingdom
31.   Overseas Technical Services (Harrow) Ltd.       United Kingdom
32.   Baker/OTS Ltd.                                  United Kingdom
33.   SD Forty-Five Ltd.                              United Kingdom
34.   Hanseatic Oilfield Services Ltd.                Vanuatu
35.   OTS Finance and Management Ltd.                 Vanuatu
36.   Overseas Technical Service International Ltd.   Vanuatu

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32(g)

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

I,





|(1) | The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2005 (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 as of the dates and for the periods presented in the Report.









|/s/ Carolyn C. Shanks       		Carolyn C. Shanks
Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer of
Entergy Mississippi, Inc.
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date:	March 9, 2006
Exhibit 4.9


 


AMENDMENT NO. 1


TO


PENNY AUCTION SOLUTIONS, INC.


PROMISSORY NOTE


 


December 10, 2012


 


WHEREAS, on February
9, 2012, Penny Auction Solutions, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), issued an unsecured promissory note (the
“Note”), pursuant to which it promised to pay to the order of Kodiak Capital Group, LLC (the “Holder”),
the principal amount of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($500,000), together with interest incurred thereon, as therein provided;


 


WHEREAS, the Note provided
that, all principal and interest accrued and unpaid thereunder shall become due son December 12, 2012 (the “Maturity Date”);


 


WHEREAS, the Company
and the Holder have determined that it is advisable and in their best interests to amend the Note to extend the Maturity Date to
March 31, 2013;


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in
consideration of the foregoing and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged,
and intending to be legally bound hereby, the Company and the Holder hereby agree as follows:


 


1.Each of the first
paragraph of the Note and Section 2(a) of the Note is hereby amended by deleting “December 12, 2012” and inserting
“March 31, 2013” in lieu thereof.


 


2.This Amendment
No. 1 may be executed and delivered (including by facsimile transmission) in any number of counterparts, and by the different parties
hereto in separate counterparts, each of which when executed and delivered shall be deemed to be an original but all of which taken
together shall constitute one and the same agreement. Except to the extent necessary to implement the change set forth above, the
Note shall remain unmodified and in full force and effect. This Amendment No. 1 shall be construed and enforced in accordance with,
and the rights of the parties shall be governed by, the laws of the State of Nevada, without giving effect to the conflict of law
provisions thereof.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
the Company and the Holder have caused this Amendment No. 1 to be signed on the date first set forth above.


 


	 	PENNY AUCTION SOLUTIONS, INC.	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	By: 	/s/ Michael Holt 	 
	 	 	Michael Holt, President	 
	 	 	 	 


 


	 	KODIAK CAPITAL GROUP, LLC	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	By: 	/s/ Ryan Hodson	 
	 	 	Ryan Hodson
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Swift Energy
Income Partners 1987-B, Ltd.'s balance sheet and statement of operations cont-
tained in its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 1997 and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         79,980
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  508,025
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               587,315
<PP&E>                                         24,710,505
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (20,463,349)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 4,834,471
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          186,247
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     4,428,155
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   4,834,471
<SALES>                                        368,447
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               373,012
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  242,622<F1>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                67,540
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            67,540
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   67,540
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
<FN>
<F1>Includes lease operating expenses, production taxes and depreciation,
depletion and amortization expense.  Excludes general and administrative and
interest expense.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
EX-10.13



 Exhibit 10.13 
 NOTICE OF CONVERSION 
 In consideration of $4,000.00 paid to the holder hereof and
the issuance of a promissory note of the Corporation of $48,000.00 to the holder substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A, along with a waiver of all dividend rights relating to the Dividend Period subsequent to March 30,
2013, the undersigned holder does hereby elect to convert 16 shares of 15% Series A1 Convertible Preferred Stock (“Series AI Preferred Stock”) into 100,800 shares of common stock of Arête Industries, Inc. Also, in
consideration of the above, the undersigned also tenders back to the Company these 16 shares of Series A1 Preferred Stock, such shares to be cancelled. 
  

			
	HOLDER
		
	By:	 	Burlingame Equity Investors II, LP
		
		 	 /s/ Blair Sanford

	Name:	 	Blair Sanford
	Title:	 	Managing Member of General Partner
		
	Date:	 	June 28, 2013
	
	ARÊTE INDUSTRIES, INC.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Nicholas Scheidt

		 	Nicholas Scheidt, President
		
	Date:	 	June 28, 2013
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion

should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________

No. 98-10978

Summary Calendar

_______________

MELVIN E. HEARN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

GREYHOUND LINE CORPORATION,

Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

(3:97-CV-1483-R)

_________________________

March 8, 1999

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Melvin Hearn sued his employer under title VII, claiming race

discrimination for the failure to promote him to the position of

maintenance supervisor. Finding no genuine issue of material fact,

the district court entered summary judgment for the employer and

explained its ruling in a thorough memorandum opinion. 

The court concluded that the employer's stated reasonSSthat

other candidates for the job had superior qualificationsSSwas not
2

pretextual. Seeing no error in this reasoning on the basis of the

record, we affirm, essentially for the reasons set forth by the

district court.

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 11

                Computation of Net Income (Loss) Per Common Share



                                                         Three Months Ended
                                                            December 31,
                                                       ---------------------
                                                        1997          1996
                                                       -------       -------
(In thousands, except per share amounts)

BASIC:

Weighted average shares outstanding                      5,756         4,305
                                                       -------       -------

Total                                                    5,756         4,305
                                                       =======       =======

Net income (loss)                                      $  (113)      $    40
                                                       =======       =======

Net income (loss) per share                            $ (0.02)      $  0.01
                                                       =======       =======


DILUTED:

Weighted average shares outstanding                      5,756         4,305

Conversion of 1,703 shares of preferred stock
  into 1,023 shares of common stock                         --         1,023

Assuming exercise of options and warrants reduced
  by the number of shares which could have been
  purchased with the proceeds from such exercise            --           479
                                                       -------       -------

Total                                                    5,756         5,807
                                                       =======       =======

Net income (loss)                                      $  (113)      $    40
                                                       =======       =======

Net income (loss) per share                            $ (0.02)      $  0.01
                                                       =======       =======
97-183.

#### Kenneth Hall Realty Co. v. Noel.

Stark App. No. 1996CA00075. On motion for stay of court of appeals’ judgment. Motion denied.