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 GlobalNet Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Mark T.
Wood, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
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 and Exchange Act of 1934, except that KPMG, LLP, the
former auditor of our wholly-owned subsidiary, GlobalNet, Inc., has not
consented to the inclusion of their audit report for GlobalNet, Inc.'s 2002
financial statements in this Report. GlobalNet Corporation's independent public
accountants are undertaking to complete the audit of GlobalNet, Inc.'s 2002
financial statements, which audit is not yet complete. Accordingly, there is no
independent auditor's report covering GlobalNet, Inc.'s fiscal year 2002
financial statements set forth in this Report. See "Important Note" immediately
preceding the financial statements contained in this Report; and

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

          A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906
has been provided to GlobalNet Corporation and will be retained by GlobalNet
Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.



April 16, 2004                      /s/ Mark T. Wood
                                    ----------------
                                        Mark T. Wood
                                        Chief Executive Officer
FORM OF CERTIFICATION
                       PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14 AND 15d-14
              UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Charles Smith, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Crown Partners, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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, 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 annual 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 annual 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 annual report is being prepared;

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

      (c) presented in this annual 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
the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

      (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.

6. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have indicated in this annual
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: May 18, 2005              /s/ Charles Smith
                                Name: Charles Smith
                                Title: Chief Financial Officer
Good morning,

I am not the reporter for this case. Terri Davis is the reporter and she uploaded the file yesterday.

Thank you

Whitney Madison

 FILED IN 12th COURT OF APPEALS TYLER, TEXAS 7/16/2015 10:21:18 AM CATHY S. LUSK Clerk
#### In the Matter of Eddie James Lee, Sr., Appellant, v Carol B. Woughter, Superintendent, Respondent.

Submitted July 30, 2012;

decided October 18, 2012

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

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02-20-00206-CV

___________________________

On Appeal from the 153rd District Court

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 153-310407-19

Before Sudderth, C.J.; Kerr, and Birdwell, JJ.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

GARY PAHUJA A/K/A GAURAV PAHUJA, Appellant

V.

DIMENSIONAL STONE GROUP, INC. D/B/A FORTUNA GRANITOS

CORPORATION, Appellee
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT

We have considered appellant’s “Amended Notice of Settlement and Agreed 

Motion for Voluntary Dismissal.” We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See

Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f).

Each party must bear its own costs of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(d), 43.4.

Per Curiam

Delivered: January 7, 2021
Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed July 9, 

2015.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-15-00512-CR

MARCOS JESUS ITURBE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 230th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1424596

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

This is an appeal from a judgment signed April 30, 2015. On July 6, 2015, 

appellant filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a). The 

motion is granted. 

Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Boyce, McCally, and Donovan
Opinion filed July 16, 2015

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals 

___________

No. 11-15-00138-CR

___________

EVAN MARSHALL ROBERTS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 104th District Court

Taylor County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 19691B

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

Evan Marshall Roberts, Appellant, has filed a motion to dismiss his appeal. 

In the motion, Appellant requests that this court “dismiss this cause on grounds that 

the Appellant no longer desires to pursue an appeal.” The motion is signed by both 

Appellant and his counsel in accordance with TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2.

The motion is granted, and the appeal is dismissed. 

July 16, 2015 PER CURIAM

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson, J., and Bailey, J.
July 14, 2015

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

LUIS ANTONIO GALLEGOS, Appellant

NO. 14-15-00374-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________

Today the Court heard appellant's motion to dismiss the appeal from the 

judgment signed by the court below on April 2, 2015. Having considered the 

motion and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED.

We further order that mandate be issued immediately.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Wesley Watford, Appellant.

[823 NYS2d 116]

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Del Giudice, J.), imposed March 9, 2004, on the ground that the sentence is illegal.

Ordered that the sentence is affirmed. No opinion. Prudenti, EJ., Florio, Crane, Luciano and Fisher, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of Francis Moulton, Appellant, v Brian Fischer, as Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.

Submitted December 24, 2012;

decided February 7, 2013

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the issues presented have become moot.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

November 23, 2009 

d1116 

Order 

 

November 23, 2009 

139036 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 139036 

 COA: 282613 

Wayne CC: 07-006705-FC 

VINCENT EDWARD EMERY, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 23, 2009 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
exh_1038.htm


EXHIBIT 10.38


 



THIRD AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT







This Third Amendment (“Amendment”) to the Employment Agreement by and between NetSol Technologies, Inc. (“Netsol” or the “Company”) and Najeeb Ghauri (“Executive”), dated July 25, 2013 (the “Employment Agreement is entered into as of the date indicated below.  Other than the specific amendments enumerated in the Amendment, all of the terms of the Employment Agreement shall remain in the full force and effect, and shall not be obviated or affected by this Amendment.







In the event of a conflict between the terms of this Amendment and the Employment Agreement, the terms of this Amendment shall govern.  All capitalized terms contained herein are, unless otherwise stated, as defined in the Agreement.







Now therefore, for good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:







Section 3.1 of the Employment Agreement is modified to read:







3.1           The Company shall increase, effective July 1, 2013, Executive’s base salary to Four Hundred Seventy-Four Thousand Dollars ($474,000) per year (the "Base Salary"), payable in accordance with the Company policy.  Such salary shall be pro rated for any partial year of employment on the basis of a 365-day fiscal year.  Executive will be eligible for bonuses from time to time as determined by the Board.







Section 3.12 of the Employment Agreement is added to read:








3.12   Executive shall receive 5,000 shares per quarter of service completed commencing with the quarter beginning 7/1/13.  Executive shall receive performance share grants based on the gross revenue of the Company for the fiscal year ending 6/3/14 of: 25,000 at $56,000,000; 25,000 at $62,000,000.


 







 





 











 






The Amendment is agreed to on July 25, 2013, and shall become effective as of the date first written above.


 


Employee


 


 



	By:	/s/Najeeb Ghauri	 	 	 
	 	

Najeeb Ghauri

	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	

NetSol Technologies, Inc.

	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	By:	/s/Boo-Ali Siddiqui	 	By:	/s/Patti L. W. McGlasson
	 	Boo Ali Siddiqui 	 	 	Patti L. W. McGlasson
	 	Chief Financial Officer	 	 	Secretary
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	By:	/s/Mark Caton	 	 	 
	 	

Mark Caton

	 	 	 
	 	Chairman of Compensation Committee
#### Prestige Decorating and Wallcovering, Inc., Plaintiff, v United States Fire Insurance Company, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent. Kent M. Swig, Third-Party Defendant-Appellant, et al., Third-Party Defendants. (And Three Related Actions and Third-Party Actions.)

[858 NYS2d 1]

It is undisputed that Swig’s liability under the indemnity agreement extends to payments made to subcontractors working on the Beekman Project, as well as payments made to those subcontractors (Prestige Decorating and Wallcovering, Pace Plumbing Corp., P & H Supply Co. and A.D. Winston Corp.) who were the primary plaintiffs. These additional claims were thus properly included within the ambit of USFIC’s rights against Swig *(see George Cohen Agency v Donald S. Perlman Agency,*51 NY2d 358, 364-365 [1980]).

New York courts have held that pursuant to an indemnity agreement such as that signed by the third-party defendants herein, “the surety is entitled to indemnification upon proof of payment, unless payment was made in bad faith or was unreasonable in amount, and this rule applies regardless of whether the principal was actually in default or liable under its contract with the obligee” *(Frontier Ins. Co. v Renewal Arts Contr. Corp.,*12 AD3d 891, 892 [2004]). USFIC made a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment by submitting Rochotte’s affidavit, which, pursuant to paragraph 10 of the indemnity agreement, provided an itemized statement of loss and expense *407of $514,418.64 incurred by USFIC by reason of having executed the bonds *(see American Home Assur. Co. v Gemma Constr. Co.,*275 AD2d 616, 619-620 [2000], *lv dismissed*95 NY2d 959 [2000]). In opposition, Swig’s conclusory affidavits failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to either the bona tides of the payment or the reasonableness of its amount *(see International Fid. Ins. Co. v Spadafina,*192 AD2d 637, 639 [1993]).

USFIC’s $2 million reserve was clearly reasonable in light of the claim demands made on it (in excess of $500,000), the unresolved complaint of A.D. Winston (in excess of $290,000), and the amount sought in the *Beekman International*action (in excess of $1 million), all of which were referenced in USFIC’s initial moving papers *(see BIB Constr. Co. v Fireman’s Ins. Co. of Newark, N.J.,*214 AD2d 521, 523 [1995]).

Based on the record, the discovery that has already taken place, and the lack of a showing of what further evidence might be unearthed, the asserted need for further discovery reduces itself to a “mere hope,” which is insufficient to defeat summary judgment *(Steinberg v Abdul,*230 AD2d 633 [1996]).

We have considered Swig’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Williams, Buckley and Acosta, JJ.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

ALBERT THEODORE GREELEY, III, 

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 105 WAL 2015

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 15th day of July, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 January 29, 2016

a0126

Order 

Clerk

January 29, 2016

151943

RONALD W. LECH II,

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant- Appellee,

v SC: 151943

COA: 320028

Livingston CC: 08-024045-CH

HUNTMORE ESTATES

CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION,

Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff,

and

JACOBSON ORE CREEK LAND

DEVELOPMENT, L.L.C., and SCOTT R.

JACOBSON, d/b/a S.R. JACOBSON 

LAND DEVELOPMENT, L.L.C.,

Defendants-Appellants.

______________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 16, 2015 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in 

lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE Section IV of the Court of Appeals 

judgment, and we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration. On 

remand, the Court of Appeals shall consider whether its decision that the defendants are 

not entitled to post-judgment interest under MCL 600.6013 on their sanctions award is 

consistent with Ayar v Foodland Distributors, 472 Mich 713, 717 (2005). In all other 

respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the remaining 

question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-15-00216-CV 

IN RE MARK BENNETT WILSON RELATOR

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

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

TRIAL COURT NO. 2015-05615-442

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

The court has considered relator’s petition for writ of mandamus and 

motion for emergency relief and is of the opinion that relief should be denied. 

Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of mandamus and motion for emergency 

relief are denied.

/s/ Sue Walker

SUE WALKER

JUSTICE

PANEL: DAUPHINOT, WALKER, and MEIER, JJ.

DELIVERED: July 13, 2015

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4, 52.8(d).
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Fermin Pena, Appellant.

[822 NYS2d 497]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Ira R. Globerman, J.), rendered February 28, 2003, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of murder in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 18 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

The record establishes that defendant was mentally competent at the time of his plea and sentencing *(see Pate v Robinson,*383 US 375 [1966]). The court’s determination that defendant was fit to proceed is entitled to great weight on appeal, given the conflicting medical testimony at the competency hearing *(see People v McMillan,*212 AD2d 445 [1995], *lv denied*85 NY2d 976 [1995]; *People v Cox,*196 AD2d 596 [1993], *lv denied*82 NY2d 805 [1993]). The record supports the court’s decision to credit the People’s psychiatrists, who found defendant competent. The People’s doctors had far more data from which to evaluate defendant than did the two doctors who found defendant unfit, and the record contains numerous examples of defendant’s behavior supporting the conclusion that his symptoms were feigned and manipulative. That determination *375is further supported by defendant’s seemingly miraculous recovery at the suppression hearing, plea proceedings and sentencing, after the court had found him competent. We have considered and rejected defendant’s procedural arguments concerning the competency determination.

At his plea allocution, defendant expressly stated that he understood that he was waiving his right to appeal, including his right to appeal the court’s decision on his suppression motion. This waiver forecloses review of defendant’s suppression claim, and “includes waiver of the right to invoke the Appellate Division’s interest-of-justice jurisdiction” *(People v Lopez,*6 NY3d 248, 255 [2006]). Concur—Andrias, J.E, Marlow, Nardelli, Williams and Sweeny, JJ.
#### BRADLEY v. HOLCOMB et al. (HAWKEYE CASUALTY CO. OF IOWA, Garnishee).

No. 84.

District Court, E. D. Michigan, S. D.

Sept. 28, 1942.

*514Vandeveer & Haggerty, of Detroit, Mich., for plaintiff.

O’Hara, Montgomery & Amberson, of Detroit, Mich., for defendants Holcomb.

Knight & Panzer, of Detroit, Mich., and Linsey, Shivel, Phelps & Vander Wal, of Grand Rapids, Mich., for garnishee defendant.

LEDERLE, District Judge.

An order setting a pre-trial hearing, on this date, of the statutory garnishment issue, in accordance with Rule 16, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, having been filed herein and served upon counsel of record, and it appearing that verdict and judgment for damages arising out of an automobile collision were entered herein in favor of plaintiff and against the principal defendants, that the time to appeal therefrom elapsed, that execution thereon was returned nulla bona, that in accordance with Rule 64 plaintiff issued garnishment herein against Hawkeye Casualty Company of Iowa, defendants’ alleged insurance carrier, as provided in Section *12460,*Compiled Laws of Michigan for 1929, and in the interim, by independent action between said Casualty Company and said defendants, it was determined by the Michigan Supreme Court that the involved policy of insurance was a valid and subsisting contract, and it further appearing that the involved policy covers the liability herein, and that the amount of principal, costs and interest due and owing on said judgment as of this date is $5,471.72,

It is therefore ordered and adjudged that the plaintiff, G. Floyd Bradley, recover from Hawkeye Casualty Company of Iowa, an Iowa Corporation, as garnishee of the principal defendants, Dr. Clayton E. Holcomb and Helen Holcomb, the sum of $5,-471.72, without further costs, except that said garnishee pay to the Clerk of this Court the statutory fee for entry of this judgment.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE AUDITED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND 1998 AND FOR EACH OF THE YEARS
IN THE TWO YEAR PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          21,760
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  739,825
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (92,423)
<INVENTORY>                                  1,261,437
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,052,752
<PP&E>                                         704,964
<DEPRECIATION>                               (645,163)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,342,530
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,658,328
<BONDS>                                      1,886,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  3,117,720
<COMMON>                                         3,983
<OTHER-SE>                                 (4,323,501)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,342,530
<SALES>                                      1,957,110
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,957,110
<CGS>                                          985,444
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,635,220
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             366,666
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,221,742)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,221,742)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,221,742)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0<F1>
<FN>
<F1>OMITTED BECAUSE OF ANTIDILUTIVE EFFECT ON NET LOSS
</FN>


</TABLE>