alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 32

                Certification of the Principal Executive Officers

                           Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350

                 (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

We, Morris H. Wheeler, the President and Chief Executive Officer and Robert W.
Pawlak, the Chief Financial Officer of Cohesant Technologies Inc. (the
"Company"), certify that to the best of our knowledge, based upon a review of
the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended November 30, 2004
(the "Report"):

            (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 Company.

/s/ Morris H. Wheeler
---------------------
Morris H. Wheeler
President and Chief Executive Officer
February 1, 2005

/s/ Robert W. Pawlak
--------------------
Robert W. Pawlak
Chief Financial Officer
February 1, 2005
#### Patterson *vs.*Newton.

1. Where, to a suit in a justice’s court, the defendant pleaded a set-off, plaintiff could defend against such plea by showing that the claim on which it was based had been settled, without further pleadings for that purpose.

(aO There are no pleadings in a justice’s court, except the, summons and a copy of the account, note or cause of action sued on; the defendant may plead any matter of defence which would be allowed to suits in the superior court, and there no special pleadings are admitted.

2. The relief of a crop which was about to be levied on, and in which a person other than the debtor was interested, from the lien which he apprehended would be placed upon it, was a sufficient consideration for his promise to settle therefor.

3. This writ of error being destitute of merit, and appearing to have been brought for delay only, ten per cent damages are awarded against the plaintiff in error.

Judgment affirmed.

November 11, 1884.

Hall, Justice.

[Newton sued Patterson in a justice’s court on an open account. The plea was set-off. The justice found for the plaintiff, and defendant appealed to a jury in that courti Plaintiff introduced evidence to show that one Clark *367threatened to sue out a distress warrant for rent, against one Roberts, and have it levied on a crop in which defendant was interested; that at the instance of the defendant, plaintiff paid off this debt, defendant promising to pay him the amount of it in a settlement of accounts, and that it was more than equal to the set-off claimed by defendant, and was paid before the suit was commenced. This evidence was admitted over the objection of defendant, based on two grounds: (1) Because there were no pleadings to authorize it; and (2) because there was no consideration for the promise by defendant to pay this amount. On *certiorari,*this ruling was sustained, and defendant excepted.]
**EXHIBIT
      32**





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





We,
      Don
      H. Barden, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, and Jon S. Bennett,
      Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of The Majestic Star Casino, LLC,
      The
      Majestic Star Casino Capital Corp., and Majestic Star Casino Capital Corp.
      II,
      (collectively, the "Registrant") certify pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:





(1)
            The
                Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Registrant for the quarter
                ended June 30, 2007 (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
                Registrant.





Dated: August
      14, 2007





*/s/
      Don H. Barden*


Don
      H.
      Barden


Chairman,
      President and Chief Executive Officer


The
      Majestic Star Casino, LLC


The
      Majestic Star Casino Capital Corp. and


Majestic
      Star Casino Capital Corp. II





*/s/
      Jon S. Bennett*


Jon
      S.
      Bennett


Vice
      President and Chief Financial Officer


The
      Majestic Star Casino, LLC


The
      Majestic Star Casino Capital Corp. and


Majestic
      Star Casino Capital Corp. II
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         453,067
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,229,527
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,002,223
<PP&E>                                       1,083,690
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,130,123
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,057,828
<BONDS>                                        119,108
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        188
<COMMON>                                           399
<OTHER-SE>                                 (3,047,400)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,130,123
<SALES>                                      4,947,253
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,947,253
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,989,671
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             6,429,408
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             732,969
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (5,161,469)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (5,161,469)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (5,161,469)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.48)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.48)


</TABLE>
#### Robert Arroyo, Petitioner, v City of New York et al., Respondents.

[666 NYS2d 168]

—Determination of respondent Correction Commissioner dated August 18, 1995, which terminated petitioner’s employment as a correction officer, *187unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLK article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Emily Goodman, J.], entered June 6, 1996) dismissed, without costs.

Petitioner’s argument that his due process rights were violated because the allegations of sexual harassment of subordinates lacked specificity regarding dates is without merit. The charges were sufficiently specific, in light of all the relevant circumstances, to apprise petitioner of the charges against him and to allow for the preparation of an adequate defense *(see, Matter of Block v Ambach,*73 NY2d 323, 333). The Commissioner did not act in bad faith in failing to provide more precise dates where numerous and extensive investigations occurred before charges were finally filed and where' one complaining witness delayed filing a formal complaint.

We also find that there is substantial evidence in the record to support the Commissioner’s determination *(see, Matter of Hansley v Koehler,*169 AD2d 545). The testimony of two of the complainants established that petitioner sexually harassed them by exposing himself to them, and the testimony of another complainant proved that petitioner had sexually assaulted her.

In view of the nature of the charges, the penalty imposed was not so disproportionate to the offenses so as to be shocking to our sense of fairness *(see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ.,*34 NY2d 222). Indeed, as the Hearing Officer stated, either set of charges was sufficient, by itself, to support petitioner’s dismissal *(see, Matter of Hansley v Koehler, supra).*Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Nardelli, Williams and Tom, JJ.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3152 

To amend titles XVIII of the Social Security Act to ensure that low-income 

beneficiaries have improved access to prescription drugs under the Medicare and Medicaid programs. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 9, 2009 

Mr. HOLT (for himself and Mr. DOGGETT) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition 

to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently 

determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend titles XVIII of the Social Security Act to ensure 

that low-income beneficiaries have improved access to 

prescription drugs under the Medicare and Medicaid programs. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Helping Seniors 

5 Choose their Medicare Drug Plan Act’’. 


jbell on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3152 IH

1 SEC. 2. BENEFICIARY-CENTERED ASSIGNMENT UNDER 

2 MEDICARE PART D PRESCRIPTION DRUG 

3 PLANS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1860D–1(b)(1) of the So5 cial Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w–101(b)(1)) is amend6 ed— 

7 (1) in the second sentence of subparagraph (C), 

8 by striking ‘‘on a random basis among all such 

9 plans’’ and inserting ‘‘, subject to subparagraph (D), 

10 in the most appropriate plan for such individual’’; 

11 and 

12 (2) by adding at the end the following new sub13 paragraph: 

14 ‘‘(D) BENEFICIARY CENTERED ASSIGN15 MENT.—In the case of any default enrollment 

16 under subparagraph (C), a part D eligible indi17 vidual described in such subparagraph shall be 

18 enrolled in a prescription drug plan based on 

19 guidelines established by the Secretary that ac20 count for the individual’s previous prescription 

21 drug utilization.’’. 

22 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

23 subsection (a) shall apply to enrollments effected on or 

24 after November 15, 2010. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
**EXHIBIT 31.1**Certification of the Principal Executive OfficerPursuant to 15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)(Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)I, Morris H. Wheeler, the President and Chief Executive Officer of Cohesant Technologies Inc. (the“Company”), certify that:(1) I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB/A of the Company;(2) Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary tomake the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered bythis report;(3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report.(4) The Company’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Company andwe have:(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to bedesigned under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisreport our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation;and
 

 
(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the Company’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurredduring the Company’s most recent fiscal quarter (theCompany’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the Company’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and(5) The Company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,to the Company’s auditors and the audit committee of Company’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknessesin the design or operation of internal controls overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the Company’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant rolein the Company’s internal controls over financialreporting.   /s/ Morris H. Wheeler   Morris H. Wheeler  Cohesant Technologies Inc.  President and Chief Executive Officer     June 30, 2006
#### In the Matter of Nancy S. Bray, Respondent, v Randolph Bray, Appellant.

[986 NYS2d 368]

McCarthy, J.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Warren County (Breen, J.), entered February 19, 2013, which, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 4, denied respondent’s objection to the order of a Support Magistrate.

Petitioner (hereinafter the mother) and respondent (hereinafter the father) are the parents of three children. The mother commenced this proceeding seeking child support from the father. Following a hearing, the Support Magistrate disbelieved the father’s testimony, determined that the proof did not permit a reasonable estimate of his income, stated what the statutory child support amount would be on imputed income to the father in the amount of $100,000, then determined an amount of support based on the needs of the children *(see*Family Ct Act § 413 [1] [k]). The father filed an objection with Family Court, specifically contending that the Support Magistrate erred in imputing $100,000 income to the father. Family Court denied the objection. The father appeals, arguing that the court erred in basing the child support award on the children’s needs, as the record contained sufficient evidence of his income *(compare*Family Ct Act § 413 [1] [k] *with*Family Ct Act § 413 [1] [c]).

The father did not preserve his current argument for our review, as he did not include it as a specific objection to Family *1075Court from the Support Magistrate’s findings *(see Matter of Costopoulos v Ferguson,*74 AD3d 1457, 1458 [2010]; *Matter of Juneau v Morzillo,*56 AD3d 1082, 1086 [2008]). Accordingly, we affirm without addressing the merits of his argument.

Peters, PJ., Stein and Egan Jr., JJ., concur.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.
ex10-1.htm



Exhibit 10.1







PROMISSORY NOTE








 



	Date:	December 22, 2014
	 	 
	Borrower: 	Oro East Mining, Inc.
	 	7817 Oakport Street, Suite 205
	 	Oakland, California 94621
	 	 
	Lender: 	************* [Redacted]
	 	 
	Principal Amount:	$100,000.00





 


 






	
1.  

	
FOR VALUE RECEIVED. The Borrower promises to pay to the Lender at such address as may be provided in writing to the Borrower, the principal sum of $100,000.00 USD, with interest payable on the unpaid principal at the rate of 12.00 percent per annum, calculated yearly not in advance.









 




	
2.  

	
All accrued interest and principal will be repaid in full on June 21, 2015.







 






	
3.  

	
At any time while not in default under this Note, the Borrower may pay the outstanding balance then owing under this Note to the Lender without further bonus or penalty.









 



	
4.  

	
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Note, if the Borrower defaults in the performance of any obligation under this Note, then the Lender may declare the principal amount owing and interest due under this Note at that time to be immediately due and payable.







 




	
5.  

	
In the case of the Borrower’s default and the acceleration of the amount due by the Lender all amounts outstanding under this Note will bear interest at the rate of 18.00 percent per annum from the date of demand until paid.









 




	
6.  

	
If any term, covenant, condition or provision of this Note is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, it is the parties’ intent that such provision be reduced in scope by the court only to the extent deemed necessary by that court to render the provision reasonable and enforceable and the remainder of the provisions of this Note will in no way be affected, impaired or invalidated as a result.







 





	
7.  

	
This Note will be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of the State of California.













	
8.  

	
This Note will ensure to the benefit of and be binding upon the respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns of the Borrower and the Lender.














  





  











  






 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Borrower has duly affixed its signature by a duly authorized officer on this 22nd day of December, 2014.







SIGNED AND DELIVERED


This 22nd day of December, 2014







/s/ TIAN QING CHEN                                                                                          







Tian Qing Chen


Chief Executive Officer


Oro East Mining, Inc.
#### Gregory Tyrone GARY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gene JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections; Harris L. Diggs, Warden, Nottoway Correctional Center, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 11-6094.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 31, 2011.

Decided: April 6, 2011.

Gregory Tyrone Gary, Appellant Pro Se.

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Gregory Tyrone Gary appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 *287U.S.C. § 1988 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Gary v. Johnson,*No. 2:09-cv-00606-JBF-DEM (E.D. Va. filed Jan. 11, 2011; entered Jan. 12, 2011). We further deny Gary’s motions for appointment of counsel and for transcript at government expense. 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.

*AFFIRMED.*
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kmail Larger, Appellant.

[665 NYS2d 896]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berkman, J.), rendered on or about September 4, 1996, unanimously affirmed.

Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted. *(See, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders, 52*AD2d 833.) We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no non-frivolous points which could be raised on this appeal.

Pursuant to CPL 460.20, defendant has the right to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals by making application to the Chief Judge of that Court and by submitting such application to the Clerk of that Court or to a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of this Department on reasonable notice to the respondent within thirty (30) days after service of a copy of this order, with notice of entry.

Denial of the application for permission to appeal by the Judge or Justice first applied to is final and no new application may thereafter be made to any other Judge or Justice. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Mazzarelli, Andrias and Colabella, JJ.
The Honorable James Maxwell Moody, United States District Judge for the

1

Eastern District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 98-1944EA

_____________

United States of America, *

* On Appeal from the United

Appellee, * States District Court

* for the Eastern District

v. * of Arkansas.

*

John Bloomfield, * [To Be Published.]

*

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: August 5, 1998

 Filed: August 13, 1998 

___________

Before McMILLIAN, RICHARD S. ARNOLD, and MORRIS SHEPPARD

ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

John Bloomfield was charged by a grand jury with a number of drug and firearm

offenses, after Pulaski County police officer Randy Howard found drugs and a loaded

firearm in a car Bloomfield was driving. Bloomfield moved to suppress the evidence

obtained from his vehicle. Following two suppression hearings, the District Court1

denied the motion. Bloomfield then entered a conditional plea of guilty to possessing
-2-

over 100 grams of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§ 841(a)(1), reserving his right to appeal the denial of his pretrial motion to suppress,

and the District Court sentenced Bloomfield to 14 years imprisonment and 5 years

supervised release. Bloomfield now appeals, challenging his conviction and sentence.

We affirm.

We review de novo the legal conclusion that there was probable cause, but we

review findings of historical fact for clear error only. See United States v. Weinbender,

109 F.3d 1327, 1329 (8th Cir. 1997). At the suppression hearings, Howard testified

that on the August 1995 evening in question, he saw Bloomfield driving a Camaro with

1993 license plates, and that a radio check to the police dispatcher confirmed the plates

were expired. After Howard stopped the Camaro, Bloomfield was unable to produce

proof of insurance or vehicle registration. While sitting sideways in the driver’s seat

with his feet outside the car, Bloomfield searched inside his vehicle for the paperwork.

Standing near the vehicle to examine its vehicle identification number, Howard could

see inside the vehicle, where he noticed a firearm sticking out from underneath the

driver’s seat. Howard placed Bloomfield under arrest for possession of a handgun

being carried as a weapon, and during an inventory search of the vehicle, Howard

found narcotics.

On the basis of Howard’s testimony, which the District Court credited, see

United States v. Moss, 138 F.3d 742, 745 (8th Cir. 1998), we conclude the District

Court did not err in denying Bloomfield&s motion to suppress, see United States v.

Maza, 93 F.3d 1390, 1396 (8th Cir. 1996) (traffic violation provides probable cause

for traffic stop), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 1008, 1345 (1997); United States v. Cummins,

920 F.2d 498, 502 (8th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 962 (1991); cf. United States

v. Peyton, 108 F.3d 876, 877-78 (8th Cir. 1997). 

Accordingly, we affirm.
-3-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.