alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32








CERTIFICATIONS
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 report of Ridgewood Energy T Fund, LLC (the “Fund”) on Form
10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009 as furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned
officers of the Fund hereby certifies, 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Fund.





RIDGEWOOD
      ENERGY T FUND, LLCDated:
            November
      4, 2009
            By:
            /s/
            
            
            ROBERT
      E. SWANSONName:
            
            
            Robert
      E. SwansonTitle:
            
            
            Chief
      Executive Officer(Principal
      Executive Officer)Dated:
            November
      4, 2009
            By:
            /s/
            
            
            KATHLEEN
      P. MCSHERRYName:
            
            
            Kathleen
      P. McSherryTitle:
            
            
            Executive
      Vice President and Chief Financial Officer(Principal
      Financial Officer)





A signed
original of this written statement 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
Ridgewood Energy T Fund, LLC and will be retained by Ridgewood Energy T Fund,
LLC and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
1

Filed 8/12/16 P. v. Jones CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). T his opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JOSEPH WAYNE J ONES,

Defendant and Appellant. E064993

(Super.Ct.No. FWV1500270)

OPINION

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Stanford E.

Reichert , Judge. Affirmed.

Christian C. Buckley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for De fendant

and Appellant

.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

A. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On September 4, 2015, defendant and appellant Joseph Wayne Jones (defendant)

entered into a negotiated plea agreement. Defendant pled guilty to one count of felony2

identity theft under Penal Code section 530.5, subdivision (a) (count 4) and one count of

misdemeanor possession of a forged driver’s license under Penal Code section 470b

(count 3). Defendant also admitted a strike prio r under Penal Code section 57,

subdivisions (b) through (i). On October 5, 2015, the court sentenced defendant to 32

months in state prison in accordance with the p l e a agreement. The court also aw arded

defendant 454 days of pre sentence custody credits.

On December 14, 2015, defendant filed his notice of appeal and requested a

certificate of probable cause. The court granted defendant’s request. 1

B. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 2

Defendant’s offenses involved theft or attempted theft by false pretense from Kay

Je welers and Zales Jewelers using false identifications and personal identifying

information on December 19, 2014.

DISCUSSION

After defendant appealed, and upon his request, this court appointed counsel to

represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979)

25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 setting forth a statement of

the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues, and requesting this court

to undertake a review of the entire reco rd.

1 Defendant also filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate regardin g the denial of a

post

- plea non statutory motion for the return of property. The writ was denied ( c ase No.

E064984 )

.

2 The parties stipulated that the police reports would provide a factual basis for

the plea.3

We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, but he

has not done so. Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we

have independently reviewed the record for potential error and find no error.

DISP OSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

MILLER

J.

We concur:

RAMIREZ

P. J.

McKINSTER

J.
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 ZipGlobal Holdings, Inc. (the
“Registrant”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Michael C. Lee, Principal Executive Officer and the Principal Financial Officer
of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my
knowledge:




(1) the
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and




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




Dated:
      November  12, 2010
                  
                  /s/ MICHAEL
      C. LEEMichael
      C. LeePresident, Chief
      Executive Officer and Chairman
                    (Principal
      Executive Officer)
                    (Principal
      Financial/Accounting Officer)
Case 3:11-cv-00916-AET-DEA Document 66 Filed 08/13/12 Page 1 of 6 PageID: 955
Case 3:11-cv-00916-AET-DEA Document 66 Filed 08/13/12 Page 2 of 6 PageID: 956
Case 3:11-cv-00916-AET-DEA Document 66 Filed 08/13/12 Page 3 of 6 PageID: 957
Case 3:11-cv-00916-AET-DEA Document 66 Filed 08/13/12 Page 4 of 6 PageID: 958
Case 3:11-cv-00916-AET-DEA Document 66 Filed 08/13/12 Page 5 of 6 PageID: 959
Case 3:11-cv-00916-AET-DEA Document 66 Filed 08/13/12 Page 6 of 6 PageID: 960
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1282 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1282

  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal certain rules 
   related to the determination of unrelated business taxable income.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 2, 2019

Mr. Cruz (for himself and Mrs. Shaheen) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal certain rules 
   related to the determination of unrelated business taxable income.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Preserve Charities and Houses of 
Worship Act''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF REQUIREMENT THAT UNRELATED BUSINESS TAXABLE INCOME BE 
              COMPUTED SEPARATELY FOR EACH TRADE OR BUSINESS ACTIVITY.

    (a) In General.--Section 512(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 is amended by striking paragraph (6).
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall take 
effect as if included in section 13702 of Public Law 115-97.

SEC. 3. REPEAL OF INCREASE OF UNRELATED BUSINESS TAXABLE INCOME BY 
              CERTAIN DISALLOWED FRINGE BENEFITS.

    (a) In General.--Section 512(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 is amended by striking paragraph (7).
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall take 
effect as if included in section 13703 of Public Law 115-97.
                                 <all>
```
<Page>

                                                                    Exhibit 10.2

(Letterhead of Landry Montana Partners)

              LANDRYmontanapartners                    ric landry




                                   MEMORANDUM

TO:                  Edward Mooney, Director

FROM:                Ric Landry

DATE:                April 15, 2001

RE:                  Consulting Agreement/Options for Optika Investments Company

================================================================================

Edward, per our discussion, we have agreed to the following:

          1)  I will work with the company and recruit for the company the
              appropriate Directors and Management team. In addition I will
              perform general consulting assignments as called upon.

          2)  Beginning May 1st 2001, the company will pay me $10,000 per
              month for 1 year and pay at cost all my direct expenses on behalf
              of the company.

          The monies will accrue until two (2) events happen with the company:

          1)  An acquisition of an operating company into Optika (Direct Digital
              for example)

          2)  $4 million dollars is raised to fund the company.

          At that time all monies to date are due.

          In addition the company agrees to issue 150,000 options to me at a
          strike price not to exceed $1.50. All options will be fully vested and
          issues at the time of the first Acquisition.

          Please indicate your approval of this Agreement by signing; dating
          and keeping a copy and returning by fax a copy to me.

          Thanks



          Ric Landry
          Partner

          Approved By: /s/   Edward Mooney
                      ------------------------------------------

          Date:  4/15/01
               -------------------------------------------------
Exhibit10(t)


Exhibit 10(t)


ENERGEN CORPORATION STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN
PERFORMANCE SHARE AWARD
Dated as of _________,______




An Award of Performance Shares is hereby granted to the below named Participant.  This Award is granted under the Energen Corporation Stock Incentive Plan (“the Plan”), dated November 25, 1997, as amended, and is subject in all respects to the terms and provisions of the Plan which is incorporated herein by reference.  Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, this Award is subject to the transferability restrictions and forfeiture provisions set forth in the Plan.  Words defined in the Plan and used in this Agreement shall have the meanings set forth in the Plan.  The attributes of this Award are as follows:


	
		
	1)
	Participant:    «Name»    

	 
	 

	2)
	Number of Performance Shares:    «Shares»

	 
	 

	3)
	Grant Date:    ______________

	 
	 

	4)
	Award Period:      ____________, ____ to __________, ____.

	 
	 

	5)
	Performance Conditions: The Award is subject to the following Performance Conditions:

	 
	 

	 
	 

	 
	 

	6)
	Additional terms and conditions:    [None / specified additional conditions].








	
			
	 
	ENERGEN CORPORATION

	 
	 
	 

	 
	By
	 

	 
	 
	 

	 
	Its
	 








The Participant hereby accepts this Performance Share Award and agrees to accept as binding, conclusive, and final all decisions and interpretations of the Committee and/or the Board, upon any questions arising under the Plan.




	
			
	 
	 

	 
	Participant - «Name»
Case 3:11-cv-00916-AET-DEA Document 64 Filed 07/30/12 Page 1 of 8 PageID: 927
Case 3:11-cv-00916-AET-DEA Document 64 Filed 07/30/12 Page 2 of 8 PageID: 928
Case 3:11-cv-00916-AET-DEA Document 64 Filed 07/30/12 Page 3 of 8 PageID: 929
Case 3:11-cv-00916-AET-DEA Document 64 Filed 07/30/12 Page 4 of 8 PageID: 930
Case 3:11-cv-00916-AET-DEA Document 64 Filed 07/30/12 Page 5 of 8 PageID: 931
Case 3:11-cv-00916-AET-DEA Document 64 Filed 07/30/12 Page 6 of 8 PageID: 932
Case 3:11-cv-00916-AET-DEA Document 64 Filed 07/30/12 Page 7 of 8 PageID: 933
Case 3:11-cv-00916-AET-DEA Document 64 Filed 07/30/12 Page 8 of 8 PageID: 934
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 7781** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. STERLING LEE DREW, a/k/a Sterile Drew, a/k/a Sterl , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Statesville
. Richard L. Voorhees , District Judge. ( 5:06

- cr - 00022

- RLV

- CH

- 9 )

Submitted : December 13, 2012 Decided: December 19, 2012

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Sterling Lee Drew, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Richard Ascik, Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorneys, Asheville, North Carolina; Thomas A. O’Malley, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Sterling Lee Drew appeals the district court ’ s order denying a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582( c)(2) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Drew , No. 5:06

- cr - 00022

- RLV

CH

- 9 (W.D.N.C. Sept. 26, 2012 ) . We dispense with oral argument bec ause the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
A

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA *

*

v. * Crim. No. 11-161

*

CHRISTOPHER RAD *

Defendant, *

MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE

COMES NOW, the Defendant in the above styled and numbered cause, 

through his Attorney of Record, and moves the Court to suppress the following 

evidence:

1. All tangible evidence seized by law enforcement officers or others in 

connection with the detention and arrest of the Defendant in this case, or in 

connection with the investigation of this case.

2. All written and oral statements made by the Defendant to any law 

enforcement officers or others in connection with this case.

3. Testimony of law enforcement officers or others concerning any 

actions of the Defendant while under detention or arrest in connection with this 

case.

4. Testimony of law enforcement officers or others concerning the 

tangible evidence or statements to which reference was made above.

As grounds for this Motion, Defendant would show this Court as follows:

That any tangible evidence seized in connection with this case was seized 

without lawful warrant, probable cause or other lawful authority in violation of the 

Case 3:11-cr-00161-JAP Document 23 Filed 07/28/12 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 143
B

Defendant’s rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United 

States Constitution, Article I, Section 9 of the Texas Constitution, and Chapters 14 

and 38, including Article 38.23, of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.

II

That any statements obtained from Defendant were obtained in violation 

of Defendant’s rights under the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to 

the United States Constitution, Article I, Sections 9, 10, and 19 of the Texas 

Constitution, and Chapter 14 and Article 38.22, 38.22 § 2, and 38.22 § 3 of the 

Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.

III

That testimony concerning any actions of the Defendant while he was 

under arrest or in detention would be a product of violation of the Defendant’s rights 

under the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States 

Constitution, Article I, Sections 9, 10, and 19 of the Texas Constitution, and Chapter 

14 and Articles 38.22 and 38.23 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure as well as 

Sec. 26 of the Vienna Convention.

IV

And for such other reasons that may appear on the hearing of this Motion.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is respectfully requested 

that this motion to Suppress Evidence be granted.

Case 3:11-cr-00161-JAP Document 23 Filed 07/28/12 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 144
C

Respectfully Submitted,

___________________________________

Francis W. Williams Montenegro

SB#: 21533500

1604 San Antonio Street

Austin, TX 78701-1223

Phone 512-476-1212

Facsimile 512-476-3178

 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing motion has 

been forwarded to the Office of the District Attorney this the ____ day of

____________ 2012.

________________________________

Francis W. Williams Montenegro

Case 3:11-cr-00161-JAP Document 23 Filed 07/28/12 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 145
Case 2:11-cv-01927-CCC Document 6 Filed 11/02/11 Page 1 of 5 PageID: 18
Case 2:11-cv-01927-CCC Document 6 Filed 11/02/11 Page 2 of 5 PageID: 19
Case 2:11-cv-01927-CCC Document 6 Filed 11/02/11 Page 3 of 5 PageID: 20
Case 2:11-cv-01927-CCC Document 6 Filed 11/02/11 Page 4 of 5 PageID: 21
Case 2:11-cv-01927-CCC Document 6 Filed 11/02/11 Page 5 of 5 PageID: 22