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

                    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 Sanguine Corporation (the
"Registrant") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2006, as
filed with the Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we, Thomas C.
Drees, President and Chief Executive Officer and David Nelson, Chief 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:

     (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
Registrant.

Dated: 3/23/2007                           /s/Thomas C. Drees
      ----------                           -------------------------------
                                           Thomas C. Drees, Ph.D.
                                           President, Chief Executive Officer
                                           and Director

Dated: 3/23/2007                           /s/David E. Nelson
      ----------                           -------------------------------
                                           David E. Nelson
                                           Chief Financial Officer,
                                           Secretary/Treasurer and
                                           Director
EXHIBIT 32.1


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

                                     by the
               Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer


     In connection with the Annual Report of ITEX Corporation, a Nevada
corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB/A for the fiscal year ended July 31,
2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), Steven
White, Interim Chief Executive Officer and Interim Chief Financial Officer, of
the Company, hereby certifies pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 (18 U.S.C. ss. 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; and

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





                                                 INTERIM CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

                                                 /s/ Steven White
                                                 ------------------------------
                                                 Steven White

                                                 December 1, 2003



                                                 INTERIM CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


                                                 /s/ Steven White
                                                 ------------------------------
                                                 Steven White

                                                 December 1, 2003
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                       2,364,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                7,955,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   162,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            10,601,000
<PP&E>                                       5,687,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,889,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              13,310,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,675,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,903,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                13,310,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            37,122,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               20,870,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            15,158,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                70,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,020,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   453,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            567,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   567,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.25
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7538

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus IRA LEE DICKERSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, District Judge. (CR-91-36, CA-97-2809-4-12) Submitted: April 27, 2001 Decided: May 15, 2001 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ira Lee Dickerson, Appellant Pro Se. Beth Drake, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Ira Lee Dickerson seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. With respect to Dickerson’s newly-presented claim on appeal that he was sentenced in violation of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), we recently held in United States v. Sanders , F.3d , 2001 WL 369719 (4th Cir. Apr. 13, 2001) (No. 00-6281), that the new rule announced in Apprendi is not retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review. Accordingly, we grant Dickerson’s motion toamend his brief, but deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Dickerson , Nos. CR-91-36; CA-97-2809-4-12 (D.S.C. filedSept. 27, 2000; entered Sept. 28, 2000). We further deny Dickerson’s motion for the appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
cool_ex1085.htm

EXHIBIT 10.85

 

AMENDMENT

TO THE $165,000 PROMISSORY NOTE DATED August 24, 2018

 

The parties agree that $165,000 Promissory Note by and between Cool Technologies, Inc. (“Company”) and Lucas Hoppel (“Holder”) is hereby amended as follows:

 

Maturity Date: The Maturity Date shall be extended to April 30th, 2018.

 

Conversion Price: The Conversion Price in section 3(a)(ii) shall permanently be changed to equal $0.025 cents.

 

ALL OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE $165,000 PROMISSORY NOTE REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT.

 

Please indicate acceptance and approval of this amendment dated February 19th, 2018 by signing below:

 

 


	
/s/ Timothy Hassett
	
 
	
/s/ Lucas Hoppel
	
 

	
Tim Hassett 
	
 
	
Lucas Hoppel
	
 

	
Cool Technologies, Inc. 

Chief Executive Officer
# United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 21-1254

___________________________

Pedro Mejia lllllllllllllllllllll Petitioner

v. Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General of the United States

lllllllllllllllllllll Respondent

____________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

____________ Submitted: July 22, 2021 Filed: July 27, 2021 [Unpublished]

____________ Before LOKEN, KELLY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM. Guatemalan native and citizen Pedro Mejia petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which dismissed his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).As a preliminary matter, we conclude this court’s precedent forecloses Mejia’s

argument, based on Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), that the immigration court never acquired jurisdiction over his proceedings because his Notice to Appear was deficient. See Ali v. Barr, 924 F.3d 983, 985-86 (8th Cir. 2019). Moreover, to the extent Mejia intended to seek review of the denial of his asylum application, we may not review that challenge. He conceded during his counseled proceedings before the immigration judge that his application was untimely, the immigration judge found that it was untimely, and the BIA concluded he waived the claim by not challenging it on appeal. See Chak Yiu Lui v. Holder, 600 F.3d 980, 984 (8th Cir. 2010). Even if he had exhausted the claim, we would lack jurisdiction to review it. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(a)(3); Purwantono v. Gonzales, 498 F.3d 822, 823-24 (8th Cir. 2007). We further conclude substantial evidence supports the denial of withholding of removal, as Mejia failed to establish by a clear probability that his life or freedom would be threatened in Guatemala because of a protected ground. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A); Silvestre-Giron v. Barr, 949 F.3d 1114, 1117, 1119 & n.3 (8th Cir. 2020) (standard of review). The agency determined Mejia failed to demonstrate the requisite nexus because his aggressors were motivated by monetary gain, not by his indigenous race or proposed particular social groups. The record does not compel a contrary conclusion. See Garcia-Moctezuma v. Sessions, 879 F.3d 863, 868-69 (8th Cir. 2018); Marroquin-Ochoma v. Holder, 574 F.3d 574, 577 (8th Cir. 2009). Because this determination provided a sufficient basis for denying Mejia’s withholding of removal claim, we do not consider his other arguments. See Baltti v. Sessions, 878 F.3d 240, 245 (8th Cir. 2017) (per curiam). Finally, we discern no error in the agency’s denial of CAT protection because Mejia based his claim on the same facts as his other claims. See Ming Ming Wijono v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 868, 874 (8th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review.

______________________________

-2-
Blueprint





 






EXHIBIT
10.43



LEASE AMENDMENT NO. 11

 


This
Lease Amendment made and entered into this 20th day of November
2017, by and between Whitesell
Enterprises, hereinafter referred to as
(“Landlord”) and American Bio Medica
Corporation, hereinafter referred to as
(“Tenant”);

 


WHEREAS,
Landlord leased to Tenant that certain premises known as
Unit 4 at 603
Heron Drive, Logan Township, Gloucester County, New
Jersey, consisting
of 5,238
square
feet, (the “Premises”) pursuant to a
Multi-Tenant Industrial Lease dated July 7, 1999; subsequently
amended by Lease Amendment No. 1 dated August 17, 1999, Lease
Amendment No. 2 dated May 23, 2001, Lease Amendment No. 3 dated
August 20, 2002, Lease Amendment No. 4 dated October 9, 2006, Lease
Amendment No. 5 dated January 19, 2007, Lease Amendment No. 6 dated
December 1, 2011, Lease Amendment No. 7 dated December 12, 2012 and
Lease Amendment No. 8 dated December 4, 2013, and Lease Amendment
No. 9 dated December 15, 2014, and Lease Amendment No. 10 dated
December 23, 2015 (the “Lease”), the terms and
conditions being more particularly described therein;
and

 


WHEREAS,
Landlord and Tenant wish to amend the Lease;

 


NOW
THEREFORE, in consideration of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00), the
promises and undertakings contained herein, and other good and
valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are
hereby acknowledged, Landlord and Tenant intending to be legally
bound, hereby agree to amend the Lease as follows:

 



1) 

Tenant shall renew
the term of the lease for a period of two (2) years commencing
January 1, 2018 and expiring December 31, 2019.





 



2) 

The Base Rent for
the renewal term shall be $6.00 per square foot net,
$31,428.00/year, $2,619.00/month.





 


Except
as modified by this Lease Amendment, all other terms and conditions
of the original Lease shall remain in full force and
effect.

 




LANDLORD: WHITESELL
ENTERPRISES   








By: Whitesell Construction Co., Inc., Authorized Agent


 


 



By/S/ Thomas J.
Heitzman






    Thomas
J. Heitzman, Manager


 



TENANT: AMERICAN BIO MEDICA CORPORATION


 


By
/S/ Melissa A.
Waterhouse


Chief
Executive Officer
---

Exhibit 99.4

Tel: 604 688 5421
     BDO Canada LLPFax: 604 688 5132
     600 Cathedral Placewww.bdo.ca
     925 West Georgia StreetVancouver BC V6C 3L2 Canada
  Independent Auditors Report
  To The Shareholders of 
Minefinders Corporation Ltd. We have audited, before the effects of the adjustments to retrospectively apply the change in accounting described in Note 13(b), the consolidated statement of operations and comprehensive loss, shareholders equity and cash flows of Minefinders Corporation Ltd. for the year ended December 31, 2007 (the 2007 financial statements before the effects of the adjustments discussed in Note 13(b) are not presented herein).These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audit. With respect to the consolidated financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2007 we conducted our audit in accordance with Canadian generally accepted auditing standards and the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform an audit to obtain reasonable assurance whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion. In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements prior to adjustment for the change in accounting policies with respect to the retroactive adoption as a result of the change in accounting policy for convertible debt as described in Note 13(b), present fairly, in all material respects, the Companys operations and its cash flows for the year ended December 31, 2007 in accordance with Canadian generally accepted accounting principles. We were not engaged to audit, review, or apply any procedures to the adjustments to retrospectively apply the change in accounting policies described in Note 13(b) and accordingly, we do not express an opinion or any other form of assurance about whether such adjustments are appropriate and have been properly applied. Such adjustments were audited by KPMG LLP. /s/ BDO Canada LLP Chartered Accountants Vancouver, Canada 
March 5, 2008 BDO Canada LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership, is a member of BDO International Limited, a UK company limited by guarantee, and forms part of the international BDO network of independent member firms.


---
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2972 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2972

      To permanently reauthorize the EB-5 Regional Center Program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 20, 2011

 Mr. Larsen of Washington (for himself and Mr. Higgins) introduced the 
  following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To permanently reauthorize the EB-5 Regional Center Program.

    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 ``Creating American Jobs Through 
Foreign Capital Investment Act''.

SEC. 2. PERMANENT REAUTHORIZATION OF EB-5 REGIONAL CENTER PROGRAM.

    Section 610 of the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the 
Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1993 (8 U.S.C. 1153 
note) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``pilot'' each place such term appears; and
            (2) in subsection (b), by striking ``until September 30, 
        2012''.
                                 <all>
```
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports.

Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum

opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain

computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of

Appeals and does not include the filing date. 

1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 STATE OF NEW MEXICO,

3 Plaintiff-Appellee,

4 v. NO. 33,546

5 DORA DAVENPORT,

6 Defendant-Appellant.

7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY

8 Kenneth H. Martinez, District Judge

9 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General

10 Margaret McLean, Assistant Attorney General

11 Santa Fe, NM

12 for Appellee

13 Jorge A. Alvarado, Chief Public Defender

14 Sergio Viscoli, Appellate Public Defender

15 Santa Fe, NM

16 for Appellant

17 MEMORANDUM OPINION
2

1 HANISEE, Judge.

2 {1} Defendant appeals from the district court’s order denying her motion to dismiss

3 the charge of commercial burglary. Defendant entered a conditional plea reserving for

4 appeal the issues raised in her motion to dismiss. On the basis of this Court’s opinion

5 in State v. Archuleta, ___-NMCA-___, ___ P.3d ___ (No. 32,794, Oct. 27, 2014),

6 cert. granted, 2015-NMCERT-___ (No. 35,005, Jan.

7 26, 2015), we issued a notice of proposed summary disposition, proposing to

8 reverse. The State has responded with an objection to our notice and a request to hold

9 this appeal in abeyance or provide the State with a reasonable opportunity to seek

10 guidance from the New Mexico Supreme Court on all pending appeals controlled by

11 our opinion in Archuleta. [MIO 1-2] We have provided the State with such an

12 opportunity, and the Supreme Court has denied the State a stay or other remedy that

13 would suspend the precedential value of Archuleta. Thus, pursuant to Rule 12-405(C)

14 NMRA, we apply Archuleta. See Rule 12-405(C) (“A petition for a writ of certiorari

15 filed pursuant to Rule 12-502 NMRA or a Supreme Court order granting the petition

16 does not affect the precedential value of an opinion of the Court of Appeals, unless

17 otherwise ordered by the Supreme Court.”).

18 {2} In its response to our notice, the State simply objects to our proposed

19 disposition without elaboration. [MIO 1, 3] We continue to believe that there are no
3

1 material factual distinctions to remove this case from the control of our opinion in

2 Archuleta. For the reasons stated in our notice, we reverse Defendant’s conviction for

3 commercial burglary.

4 {3} IT IS SO ORDERED. 

5 _________________________________

6 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge 

7 WE CONCUR:

8 _________________________________

9 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge

10 _________________________________

11 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

**Pursuant to Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

**(Subsections (a) and (b) ofSection 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)**

 

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63of Title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Boston RestaurantAssociates, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), does herebycertify, to the best of such officer’s knowledge and belief, that:

 

(1)           The Annual Report on Form 10-K for theyear ended April 24, 2005 (the “Form 10-K”) of the Company fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)           The information contained in the Form 10-Kfairly presents, in all materials respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 
| Dated: July 19, 2005 |   /s/ | Fran V. Ross                  |   |
|---------------------------|------------|-------------------------------|--------|
|                      |       |  Fran V. Ross            |
|                      |       |  Chief Financial Officer |

 

----