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**

 

The undersigned officer(s) of Mastermind, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), hereby certifies to his or her knowledge that the Company’s report on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2021, (the “Report”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

Date: February 22, 2022

 

| /s/ Daniel A. Dodson |   |
|----------------------|--------|

Daniel A. Dodson

Chief Executive Officer and President

 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001088399
<NAME>                        BILLYWEB CORP.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Currency

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Feb-29-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jun-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   Aug-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         219,720
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               219,720
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 246,494
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          31,590
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       4,216
<OTHER-SE>                                     172,248
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   246,494
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               1239,145
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (222,893)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (222,893)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0



</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-6186
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus EDWARD OTIS RUTLAND, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-91-132-5, CA-97-811-5) Submitted: April 29, 1998 Decided: May 18, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Gregg Levitt, Denver, Colorado, for Appellant. Jane Barrett Taylor, OFFICE OF THE 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: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion andfind no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Rutland , Nos. CR-91-132-5; CA-97-811-5 (D.S.C. Dec. 8, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 3- 12 26

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Ro dn ey Bel l

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.
Caro lyn W . Col vi n, Act in g C omm is si on er o f So ci al Secu rit y

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l

App el le e

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ctof M is so ur i - Kan sa s C it y

__ __ __ __ __ __ Subm it te d: Aug us t 7 , 20 13 Fi le d: Aug us t 2 7, 2 01 3 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re SM ITH, BOW MAN, an d S HEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM.

Ro dn ey Bel l ap pe al s fro m an or de r of th e Dis tri ct Co ur t affi rm in g th e de ni al 1 of di sa bi li ty in su ran ce be ne fit s an d su pp l e men t al se cu rit y in co m e. Upo n de no vo

The Hon or ab le Fern an do J. Gait an , Jr ., Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d S t a t es Dis tri ct 1 Co ur t fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ctof M is so ur i.rev ie w, we fin d th at th e de te rm in at io n of th e ad m in is tra ti ve la w jud ge (ALJ) th at Bel l

is no t di sa bl ed is su pp or te d by su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce on th e reco rd as a who le

. See You ng v. Ast ru e, 70 2 F.3 d 48 9, 49 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ). As to Bel l’s ap pa ren t ch al le ng e to th e ALJ’s ad ve rs e cred ib il it y de te rm in at io n, th is ch al le ng e is be in g rais ed fo r th e fir st ti m e on ap pe al , se e Ro be rts v. Apf el , 22 2 F.3 d 46 6, 47 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 00 ) (n ot in g th at un le ss m an ife st in

jus ti ce wou ld res ul t, a cl ai m no t art ic ul at ed in th e di st ric t co ur t is su bjec t to fo rfei t on ap pe al ), an d in an y ev en t, the ALJ ga ve se ve ral va li d reas on s fo r fin di ng Bel l no t en ti rel y cred ib le , see Ren st ro m

v. As tru e, 68 0 F.3 d 10 57 , 1 06 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (s ta ti ng th at if th e ALJ ex pl ic it ly di sc red it s a cl ai m an t an d gi ve s go od

reas on s fo r do in g so , th e ap pe ll at e c o ur t wil l no rm al ly de fer to th e ALJ’s de te rm in at io n)

. W e aff

i r m t h e jud gm en t of th e Dis tri ct Co ur t, an d we de ny Bel l’s

m ot io n fo r ap po in tm en t o f co un se l.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-2

-
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Carl Wayne James, Also Known as Wayne James, Appellant.

[666 NYS2d 464]

—Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated November 23, 1992 *(People v James,*187 AD2d 672), affirming a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County, rendered November 8, 1989.

Ordered that the application is denied.

The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel *(see, Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745). Mangano, P. J., Copertirio, Pizzuto and Santucci, JJ., concur.
J-S39026-19

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT

OF PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

JESUS ROSARIO-TORRES

Appellant No. 925 EDA 2019

Appeal from the Order Entered February 28, 2019

In the Court of Common Pleas of Pike County

Criminal Division at No.: CP-52-CR-0000286-2008

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J.E., STABILE, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

JUDGMENT ORDER BY STABILE, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 27, 2019

Appellant Jesus Rosario-Torres pro se appeals from the February 28, 

2019 order of the Court of Common Pleas of Pike County (“trial court”), which 

denied his “Motion to Vacate and/or Reconsider Fines, Costs & Restitution 

Nunc Pro Tunc on the Grounds of Indigence” (the “Motion”). Upon review, we 

affirm. 

Given our disposition of this appeal, we need not recite the lengthy 

factual and procedural history of this case, which has been set forth in detail 

in our May 4, 2016 memorandum affirming the lower court’s decision to deny 

Appellant post-conviction relief. See Commonwealth v. Rosario-Torres, 

No. 1223 EDA 2015, unpublished memorandum at 1-4 (Pa. Super. filed May 

4, 2016). Following the denial of post-conviction relief, Appellant pro se filed 

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S39026-19

- 2 -

the Motion on February 27, 2019, requesting that the trial court either vacate 

or reconsider the imposition of fines, costs and restitution.1 On February 28, 

2019, the trial court denied the Motion. Appellant timely appeal. On March 

15, 2019, the trial court directed Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) 

statement of errors complained of on appeal within twenty-one days. The trial 

court cautioned Appellant that “failure to comply with this direction may” 

result in waiver of claims on appeal. Appellant failed to comply. On April 18, 

2019, the trial court issued its Rule 1925(a) opinion, concluding that 

Appellant’s failure to file a Rule 1925(b) statement resulted in waiver of all 

issues he wished to raise on appeal. We agree. 

It is well established that the failure to file a court-ordered Rule 1925(b)

statement results in the waiver of all claims on appeal. See Commonwealth 

v. Auchmuty, 799 A.2d 823, 825 (Pa. Super. 2002) (holding that a pro se

appellant’s failure to file a court-ordered Rule 1925(b) statement results in 

waiver of all issues on appeal); see also Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii) (“[i]ssues

not included in the Statement and/or not raised in accordance with the 

provisions of this paragraph (b)(4) are waived.”). Accordingly, we decline to

entertain the merits of this appeal because Appellant has waived all issues.

Order affirmed. 

____________________________________________

1 Appellant currently is serving a life sentence for, inter alia, his first-degree 

murder conviction.
J-S39026-19

- 3 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 9/27/19
Exhibit
13.2





PRINCIPAL
FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION





PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In
connection with this Annual Report of Seadrill Limited (the "Company") on Form
20-F for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on or about the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Alf C. Thorkildsen, Principal 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, 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 Company.





A signed
original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be
retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon
request.





Date: May
5, 2010





/s/ Alf
C. Thorkildsen





Alf C.
Thorkildsen


Principal
Financial Officer
[Nos. 41231-4-II; 41286-1-II.

Division Two.

October 16, 2012.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Ryan Jay Doering, *Appellant. In the Matter of the Personal Restraint of*Ryan Jay Doering, *Petitioner.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Kitsap County, No. 10-1-00242-0, Sally F. Olsen, J., entered August 27, 2010, together with a petition for relief from personal restraint. Judgment *remanded with instructions*and petition *dismissed*by unpublished opinion per

Worswick, C.J.,

concurred in by Quinn-Brintnall and Van Deren, JJ.
Exhibit 23.1 – Consent of BDO USA,
LLP



Teletouch Communications,
Inc.

Fort Worth, Texas



Consent of Independent Registered Public
Accounting Firm



We
hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File No. 333-108946 and File
No. 333-108945)of Teletouch Communications, Inc. of our report dated August 29, 2012,
relating to the consolidated financial statements appearing in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K/A (Amendment No.
1) for the year ended May 31, 2012. Our report contains an explanatory paragraph regarding the Company’s ability to continue
as a going concern.



|/s/ BDO USA, LLP   | 
|------------------ | 
|                   | 
|Houston, Texas     | 
|September 28, 2012 |
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-41035

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CARLOS OLVERA-RICO,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. B-00-CR-223-1

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

June 15, 2001

Before WIENER, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Carlos Olvera-Rico appeals the 57-month sentence imposed

following his plea of guilty to a charge of being found in the

United States after deportation, a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 

He contends that the felony conviction that resulted in his

increased sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) was an element of

the offense that should have been charged in the indictment.

Olvera-Rico acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by

the Supreme Court's decision in Almendarez-Torres v. United

States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he seeks to preserve the issue
No. 00-41035

-2-

for Supreme Court review in light of the decision in Apprendi v.

New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S. Ct. 2348 (2000). 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

120 S. Ct. at 2362; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 1214 (2001). OlveraRico's argument is foreclosed. The judgment of the district

court is AFFIRMED.
##### 



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
    PARAGON REAL ESTATE EQUITY and INVESTMENT TRUSTBy:
    
    /s/ James C. MastandreaDate: March 18, 2008
    
    
    
    James C. MastandreaChairman, Chief Executive Officer and PresidentPARAGON REAL ESTATE EQUITY and INVESTMENT TRUSTBy:
    
    /s/ John J. DeeDate: March 18, 2008
    
    
    
    John J. DeeChief Financial Officer and Senior Vice President
Exhibit 4,.4


    
      

      

    

    Exhibit
      4.4

    
       

       

      CALLARI
        & SUMMERS

      A
        Law
        Partnership

       

      600
        Anton
        Boulevard, 11th Floor

      Costa
        Mesa, California 92626

      Tel
        (714)
        371-4110

      Fax
        (714)
        371-4001

       

      

        Andrew
          C.
          Callari

        ac@callarisummers.com

        


        March
          22,
          2007

         

        VIA
          FACSIMILE ONLY

        Chas
          Radovich

        Cobalis
          Corp.

        2445
          McCabe Way, Suite 150

        Irvine,
          California 92624

         

        Re: Invoices
          from Callari & Summers

         

        Dear
          Chas:

         

        Our
          Invoice No. 1553 (previously submitted to Cobalis) for time and expenses
          spent
          between December 2006 and February 16, 2007 has a balance of due and owing
          of
          $20,276.74. 

        


        Our
          Invoice No. 1582 (previously submitted to Cobalis) for time and expenses
          spent
          between February 17, 2007 and March 7, 2007 has a balance of due and owing
          of
          $11,422.00. In addition, Invoice No. 1582 provides for a $30,000.00 retainer
          for
          future services in the Innofood case (Cobalis
          v. Innofood, et al.,
          Orange
          County Superior Court Case No. 06CC10355), thereby bringing the total amount
          due
          and owing on Invoice No. 1582 to $41,422.00. 

        


        The
          following is a summary of the $61,698.74 total now due and owing on Invoice
          Nos.
          1553 and 1582:

        
           

        

        
          	
                  Invoice
                    No. 1553:

                	
                  $
                    20,276.74 (time and expenses)

                
	
                  Invoice
                    No. 1582:

                	
                  $
                    11,422.00 (time and expenses)

                
	
                  Invoice
                    No. 1582:

                	
                  $
                    30,000.00 (retainer for future time and expenses)

                
	
                  Total
                    Due:

                	
                  $61,698.74

                


        

         

        As
          reflected in the Conversion Agreement, I have agreed to convert the above
          amounts to fully-paid and non-assessable free trading shares (S-8 shares)
          of
          Cobalis common stock, at the conversion rate of $0.98 (the closing price
          of the
          Company’s stock on March 9, 2007). 

         

        
          	 	 	 	
                  Very
                    truly yours,

                
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	/s/ 
	
                	 	 	
                  

                  Andrew
                    C. Callari

                


        

         

         

         

        1
Exhibit 32.1
                                                                    ------------

                                 iVideoNow, Inc.
                        383 Inverness Parkway, Suite 100
                               Englewood, CO 80112


                            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  iVideoNow,   Inc.  (the
       "Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period  ending March 31, 2003 as filed
       with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof (the
       "Report"), I, Kevin R. Keating,  President and Chief Financial Officer of
       the Company, certify, to the best of my knowledge,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
       ss.  1350,  as adopted  pursuant to ss 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 Company.

                             /s/  Kevin  R.  Keating
                             --------------------------------
                             Kevin  R.  Keating
                             President and Chief Financial Officer
                             iVideoNow,  Inc.

                             November 10, 2003


                                       13
Exhibit 99.2
                                                                    ------------

                          [IVIDEONOW, INC. LETTERHEAD]

                            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 iVideoNow, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30,2002 as filed with the Securities
and  Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I Kevin R. Keating,
Chief  Financial  Officer  of the Company, certify, to the best of my knowledge,
pursuant  to  18  U.S.C.  ss.  1350,  as  adopted  pursuant  to  ss  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
      Company.







                             /s/  Kevin  R.  Keating
                             --------------------------------
                             Kevin  R.  Keating
                             Chief  Financial  Officer
                             iVideoNow,  Inc.

                             November  14,  2002




<PAGE>

                                  END OF FILING
EXHIBIT 32.1



Certification of Chief Executive Officer 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 on Form 10-Q of Agile Software Corporation (the Company) for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2003
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Bryan D. Stolle, Chief Executive 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, that to my knowledge:



(1) The Report fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition of the Company as of the dates presented and consolidated results of operations of the
Company for the periods presented.



|Date: September 15, 2003 |  |  |  | /s/ Bryan D. Stolle                    
|------------------------ |  |  |  | ---------------------------------------
|                         |  |  |  | Bryan D. Stolle Chief Executive Officer



The foregoing
certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission as
part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Agile Software Corporation under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act Filing of 1934, as
amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespectively of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature
that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Agile Software Corporation and will be retained by Agile Software Corporation and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.