alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 99.5

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:                        CONTACT: Kym Cheseldine
December 15, 1998                                      Frederick Brewing Co.
                                                       301-694-7899

                                                       I. Miller/L. Fortune
                                                       I.W. Miller Group
                                                       949-833-9001


                          Shareholder Meeting Date Set
      Vote to Approve Reverse Stock Split Scheduled for February, 25, 1999

FREDERICK, MD -- Frederick Brewing Co. (NASDAQ: BLUE) has scheduled a special
meeting of shareholders to be held at the Company's brewery in Frederick,
Maryland at 10:00 a.m., Thursday, February 25, 1999.

In response to a September 15, 1998 notification from NASDAQ that the Company's
shares would be de-listed from the exchange unless the closing bid price reached
$1 per share for 10 consecutive trading days by December 14, 1998, Frederick
Brewing Co. shareholders will be asked to vote to approve a 1:5 reverse split of
its outstanding common stock. If approved, the reverse split will be effective
as of the meeting date. Proxy materials are being prepared and, after approval
by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), will be distributed to all
shareholders of record as of January 12, 1999.

Separately, Frederick Brewing Co. announced that it has replaced its former
auditor and accountants and has retained BDO Seidman LLP, which will service
that Company from its Washington, DC office. Neither the Company nor its former
auditors, Pricewaterhouse Coopers LLP, expressed any disagreements of policy
differences in the SEC filings announcing the change.

                                            # # #
<PAGE>

                          A.S.V., Inc. and Subsidiary
                Exhibit 11 - Computation of Earnings per Share
                 Years Ended December 31, 2000, 1999 and 1998

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                      2000         1999         1998
                                                      ----         ----         ----
<S>                                               <C>          <C>          <C>
Basic
 Earnings
  Net earnings                                     $1,450,909   $1,412,053   $3,366,055
                                                   ==========   ==========   ==========

 Shares
  Weighted average number of common
   shares outstanding                               9,782,919    9,586,032    7,764,504
                                                   ==========   ==========   ==========

 Earnings per common share                         $      .15   $      .15   $      .43
                                                   ==========   ==========   ==========

Diluted
 Earnings
  Net earnings                                     $1,450,909   $1,412,053   $3,366,055
  Add after tax interest expense applicable
   to 6.5% convertible debentures                           -            -      233,188
                                                   ----------   ----------   ----------
 Net income applicable to common stock             $1,450,909   $1,412,053   $3,599,243
                                                   ==========   ==========   ==========

 Shares
  Weighted average number of common
   shares outstanding                               9,782,919    9,586,032    7,764,504
  Assuming exercise of options and warrants
   reduced by the number of shares which could
   have been purchased with the proceeds from
   the exercise of such options and warrants          183,742      355,584      647,012
  Assuming conversion of 6.5% convertible
   debentures                                               -            -      603,997
                                                   ----------   ----------   ----------

  Weighted average number of common and
   common equivalent shares outstanding             9,966,661    9,941,616    9,015,513
                                                   ==========   ==========   ==========

 Earnings per common share                         $      .15   $      .14   $      .40
                                                   ==========   ==========   ==========
</TABLE>
exhibit10-01.htm


Exhibit 10.01










MODIFICATION AND EXTENSION TO AMENDED PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT


AMENDED NOVEMBER 30, 2014


(Turnkey Drilling, Re Entry, and Multiple Wells)












This Modification and Extension to Amended Participation Agreement dated November 30, 2014 amending the March 26, 2014 Modification and Extension to Amended Participation Agreement is in accordance with Exhibit “B” of an *Asset Purchase Agreement made and entered into as of January 21, 2014, the Effective Date (“Effective Date”), by and among Shale Corp., a corporation organized under the laws of the Province of Ontario in Canada with its principal place of business located at 365 Bay St, Suite 400, Toronto On, M5H 2V1(the “Company”), and the Investor acting as Mondial Ventures, Inc., along with approvals from Success Oil Co., Inc., its Operator and Partner, EGPI Firecreek, Inc. via its wholly owned subsidiary Energy Producers, Inc., Partner, and TWL Investments, aLLC, investing participants, herewith amend, modify and extend the following provision to the January 21, 2014 Amended Participation Agreement (please see *Asset Purchase Agreement included as Exhibit A in the Exhibit 10.1 to a Current Report on Form 8-K filed by Mondial Ventures, Inc. with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 3, 2014):







Section II. paragraph one shall be modified and extended to read:


 







II.


Consideration


 


Participants shall deliver to Operator Participant’s share of the Turnkey Cost to Casing Point for drilling of the first Prospect Well, and the first Program initiated from successful financing will be for the Ellenburger Prospect Well formation at approximately 8,300 foot depth, as provided for in this Agreement and listed as follows in this section II. 1) below within a reasonable time after the execution and effective date of this Agreement not to exceed the period ending December 31, 2014, unless mutually extended by all parties to this Agreement in writing to be attached hereto. In addition, if the Turnkey Costs are delivered for the first Prospect Well listed in II. 1) below, the parties agree to extend timing for agreed participation up to two years but no less than one year. A draft for formal terms will be then delivered by participant 1 in coordination with Success for acceptance by the parties.


 


Agreed this 30th day of November, 2014 by the undersigned:


 


 



	
 Mondial Ventures, Inc.

	
Success Oil Co., Inc.

	
 TWL Investments, a LLC


	
 


/s/Dennis R Alexander

	
 


/s/Jeru M. Morgan

	
 


/s/Larry W. Trapp


	
 President and CEO

	
 President and CEO

	
 Managing Director


	  	  	  
	
Energy Producers, Inc., a wholly owned Subsidiary of EGPI Firecreek, Inc.

	  	  
	  	  	  
	
/s/Dennis R Alexander

	  	  
	
 Dennis R. Alexander

	  	  
	
 President and CEO
Second Amendment to
                    Certificate of Limited Partnership of
               Geodyne Energy Income Limited Partnership III-C

     The  undersigned,  desiring to amend its amended  certificate  of limited
partnership  pursuant to the Oklahoma Revised Uniform Limited Partnership Act,
as amended,  Okla.  Stat. tit. 54 (1993),  Section 301 et seq (the "Act"),  do
hereby state:

     1.   The  name  of the  limited  partnership  is  Geodyne  Energy  Income
Limited Partnership III-C.

     2. The date of filing of the original  Certificate  of Limited  Partnership
was February  27, 1990,  as amended by the First  Amendment  to  Certificate  of
Limited  Partnership of Geodyne Energy Income Limited Partnership III-C filed on
February 25, 1993.

     3. The Amended  Certificate  of Limited  Partnership  is hereby  revised to
change  the name of the  General  Partner  and  Registered  Agent  from  Geodyne
Production Company to the following:

            Geodyne Resources, Inc.

Geodyne Production  Company merged with Geodyne Resources,  Inc., with Geodyne
Resources, Inc. surviving, effective June 30, 1996.

     DATED:    July 1, 1996

                                       Geodyne Production Company
                                        by Geodyne Resources, Inc.,
                                        successor by merger

                                        By:  /s/ Dennis R. Neill
                                             ---------------------------
                                             Dennis R. Neill
                                             President

                                       Geodyne Resources, Inc.
                                        as General Partner

                                        By:  /s/ Dennis R. Neill
                                             ---------------------------
                                             Dennis R. Neill
                                             President



                                      -1-
<PAGE>




                                       Geodyne Depositary Company, as the
                                       Limited Partner

                                       By:   /s/ Dennis R. Neill
                                             ---------------------------
                                             Dennis R. Neill
                                             President

                                       Geodyne Resources, Inc., as
                                       Attorney-in-Fact for all Substituted
                                       Limited Partners

                                       By:   /s/ Dennis R. Neill
                                             ---------------------------
                                             Dennis R. Neill
                                             President


                                      -2-
CIRCUIT COURT OF SPOTSYLVANIA COUNTY

#### Sandra Mills v. Orkin Exterminating Co.

July 23, 1998

Case No. CL98-256

By Judge William H. Ledbetter, Jr.

The issue presented in this civil appeal is whether the plaintiff, who noted the appeal, may now amend her ad damnum to an amount in excess of the jurisdiction of the general district court.

Appeals of civil cases from the general district court to the circuit court are governed by Virginia Code § 16.1-106 *et seq.*The appeal is of right, if properly perfected, and the trial in circuit court is *de novo.*

In such cases, the jurisdiction of the circuit court is derivative. For that reason, the Supreme Court held in *Stacy*v. *Mullins,*185 Va. 837 (1946), that a plaintiff cannot amend his pleading in circuit court to claim an amount greater than the jurisdiction limit of the general district court.

In 1997, the General Assembly changed the law announced in *Stacy v. Mullins*by amending § 16.1-114.1 as follows:

> In any case where an appeal is taken *by a defendant,*the circuit court may direct amendments to increase the amount of the claim above the jurisdictional amount set forth in § 16.1-77. [Emphasis added.]

Here, the plaintiff is the appellant. Therefore, the 1997 amendment does not apply.

The plaintiff, having invoked the jurisdiction of the general district court, is bound by the jurisdictional limits of that court even on appeal to the circuit court because the trial in the circuit court is only a continuation of the original *231suit which was commenced in a court of limited jurisdiction. See Bryson, *Virginia Civil Procedure*(3d ed. 1997) pp. 94-96. Thus, in such circumstances, the circuit court cannot allow any amendment to the pleadings that would go beyond the jurisdiction of the lower court.

The jurisdictional limit of the general district court in such cases is $15,000.00. Section 16.1-77.

Therefore, the plaintiff’s motion to amend her ad damnum to $100,000.00 will be denied.

In the alternative, the plaintiff seeks to amend her ad damnum to $15,000.00. Because that amount is within the jurisdiction of the general district court and was within such jurisdictional limits when this suit was original filed there on September 2, 1997, the circuit court has authority to allow the amendment.

Section 16.1-114.1 provides that in civil appeals, the circuit court should liberally permit amendments and corrections to cure defects, irregularities, and omissions “to promote substantial justice.” Further, Rule 1:8 states that amendments to pleadings should be liberally granted.

This case is not yet set for trial. The amendment would increase the ad damnum from $13,600.00 to $15,000.00. No cause for denying the request has been shown.

Accordingly, the court grants the plaintiff leave to amend her civil warrant to claim damages in the amount of $15,000.00.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1
                                                                    ------------

                       Consent of Independent Accountants

     We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration
statements of Innkeepers USA Trust on Form S-3 (File No. 33-97932, 333-20309,
333-31923, 333-37505, 333-53919, 333-53955, 333-58811, 333-70873, 333-93465,
333-43074 and 333-43076), of our reports (i) dated February 23, 2001 relating to
the consolidated financial statements of Innkeepers USA Trust; (ii) dated
February 23, 2001 relating to the financial statement schedule of Innkeepers USA
Trust; and (iii) dated February 23, 2001 relating to the combined financial
statements of Innkeepers Hospitality, which appear in this Annual Report on Form
10-K. We also consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Selected
Financial Data."

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Dallas, Texas
March 9, 2001
Exhibit 99.3



Liquid Audio, Inc.



Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(18 U.S.C. Section 1350)



Pursuant to the requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Sections 1350(a) and (b)), the undersigned hereby certifies as
follows:



| | 1. |  | Melvyn Brunt is the Chief Financial Officer of Liquid Audio, Inc. (the Company).
| | -- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. |  | To the best of my knowledge:
| | -- |  | ----------------------------



| | (A) |  | The Companys quarterly report on Form 10-Q accompanying this Certification, in the form filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (B) |  | The information in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/    MELVYN BRUNTMelvyn Brunt Chief Financial Officer May 15, 2003
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC
REPORT


As
adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the first quarter ended
September 30, 2009 of Integrated BioPharma, Inc. (the “Company”) as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), E.
Gerald Kay, the President and Chief Executive Officer of Integrated BioPharma,
Inc.certifies,
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, that to his knowledge:





(1)
            the
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));
      and





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





This
certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.





A signed
original 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.





Date:           November
      19, 2009
            By:/s/ E. Gerald
      KayE.
      Gerald KayPresident
      and Chief Executive
Officer
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

MEMORANDUM OPINION

N o. 04

- 13

- 00347

- CV

ROMA INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT , Arturo S. Perez, Roque Rosales, Raymond P.

Mussett, Nicolas Garza Jr., and John Clyde Guerra in their Official Capacities,

Appellants

v.

Noelia M

. GUILLEN , Raul Moreno, Dagoberto Salinas, and Tony Saenz,

Appellees

From the 229th Judicial District Court, Starr County, Texas

Trial Court No. DC

- 13

- 64

Honorable David Wellington Chew, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: October 9, 2013

DISMISSED

Appellant s filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. In their motion, Appellants certified that

Appellees are no t opposed to this motion.

W e grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P

. 42.1(a)( 1 ). Costs of this

appeal are taxed against the party that incurred them

. See id. R. 43.4

.

PER CURIAM
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  5
<MULTIPLIER>   1

<S>                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                            YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                             DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                     1,522,000
<SECURITIES>                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                             12,170,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                  67,000
<INVENTORY>                                4,034,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          17,399,000
<PP&E>                                     1,812,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                     0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            25,522,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     18,890,000
<BONDS>                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                      32,550
<OTHER-SE>                                 6,557,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              25,522,000
<SALES>                                   34,739,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          34,739,000
<CGS>                                     27,174,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              7,190,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             188,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           580,004
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              187,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                  55,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          242,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               76,000
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                 321,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    .12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    .11


</TABLE>
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-19-00403-CR

RUDY RODRIGUEZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

§

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 371st District Court

of Tarrant County (1567852D)

August 26, 2021

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Kerr

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial 

court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By _/s/ Elizabeth Kerr__________________

 Justice Elizabeth Kerr
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Saltwater Partners #1 SWD, LLC, * From the County Court at Law

 of Midland County,

 Trial Court No. CC17456.

Vs. No. 11-20-00256-CV * April 21, 2022

Smith Industries, Inc. and * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

Saltwater Partners, LLC. (Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Trotter, J., and Williams, J.)

This court has considered the parties’ joint motion to dismiss this appeal and 

concludes that the motion should be granted. Therefore, in accordance with this 

court’s opinion, the appeal is dismissed. The costs incurred by reason of this 

appeal are taxed against Saltwater Partners #1 SWD, LLC.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350 AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Intelligroup,
    Inc, (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
    on the date hereof (the Report), I, Madhu Poomalil, 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 and to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:


|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
    the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (16 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d); and      
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|    |                                                                                                                                                         
|(2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
    the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|    |                                                                                                                                                         



|DATE: 
November 9,
2005 |  | By: /s/ | Madhu Poomalil
|----------------------- |  | ------- | --------------
|                        |  |         |               
|                        |  |         |               



---