alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERCertification 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 Monterey Gourmet Foods, Inc.
(the Registrant) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008
(the Report), I, Eric Eddings, Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, do
hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge:

(1)          The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); 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: March 24, 2009 | /s/ ERIC C.
 EDDINGS                     
|                      |                                          
|                      | Eric C.
 Eddings
 Chief Executive Officer

---
Exhibit 31.2Cronos Global Income Fund XVRule 13a-14 Certifications     I, John Kallas, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Cronos Global Income Fund XV (the“Partnership”);     2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this annual report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the Partnership as of, and for, the periods presented in this annualreport;     4. The other certifying officer of Cronos Capital Corp. (“CCC”), the General Partner of thePartnership, and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Partnership and wehave:          (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe Partnership, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;and          (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the Partnership’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and          (c) disclosed in this report any change in the Partnership’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the Partnership’s most recent fiscal quarter (the Partnership’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the Partnership’s internal control over financialreporting.     5. CCC’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluationof internal control over financial reporting, to the Partnership’s auditors and the Audit Committeeof Partnership’s Board of Directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):          (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect thePartnership’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and          (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who havea significant role in the Partnership’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: March 24, 2006/s/ JOHN KALLAS
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christopher John TOBIE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-50617.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Jan. 11, 2011.

Filed Jan. 25, 2011.

Corey G. Lee, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Brian A. Newman, Esquire, Law Offices of Brian A. Newman, Redondo Beach, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: McKEOWN, W. FLETCHER, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Defendant/Appellant Christopher Tobie pled guilty to possession of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B). He appeals his eondi*996tional plea, arguing that the FBI obtained self-incriminating statements during a custodial interview that were used against him in violation of *Miranda v. Arizona,*384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), and that he was coerced into a confession. We agree with the district court that Tobie was not in custody. Two F.B.I. agents asked politely if they could enter Tobie’s home, and the interview lasted about 45 minutes. He was never physically restrained. Only the two agents were present, and neither showed Tobie their gun. They never raised their voices. Tobie sat on the couch, and the agents sat across from him. He was told twice that he was not under arrest. Although Tobie’s girlfriend was asked to stay out of the room, this did not turn Tobie’s own home into such a “police dominated environment” that he was in custody. *Compare U.S. v. Craighead,*539 F.3d 1073, 1078 (9th Cir.2008) (suspect subjected to custodial interrogation at his home where eight officers from three different law enforcement agencies were present; suspect was isolated from one of his superior, meant to provide moral support; suspect was interrogated in a storage room; and officer in a flak-jacket stood guard with his back to the room’s only exit during interrogation).

We also agree with the district court that Tobie was not subjected to such extreme psychological pressure that his admission was rendered involuntary. The tone of the conversation was quiet and reasonable. Although officers applied a modest amount of psychological pressure to Tobie by coming to his house at an early hour and saying that they knew he possessed child pornography, this is insufficient to find that his confession was involuntary. We have held confessions under much more extreme circumstances to be voluntary. *See, e.g. U.S. v. Crawford,*372 F.3d 1048, 1051-52, 1060-61 (9th Cir.2004) (en banc); *U.S. v. Haswood,*350 F.3d 1024, 1027-29 (9th Cir.2003).

AFFIRMED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
VIII

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 2793

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

AUGUST 3 (legislative day, JULY 20), 1994

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services

AN ACT

For the relief of Kris Murty.

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

3 SECTION 1. RELOCATION EXPENSES FOR KRIS MURTY.

4 For the purpose of receiving reimbursement for relo5 cation expenses under sections 5724 and 5724a of title

6 5, United States Code, Kris Murty of El Paso, Texas, an

7 employee of the Department of the Army, is deemed to

8 have been an employee transferred by the Department of

9 the Army from one official station to another for perma10 nent duty when he relocated from Houston, Texas, to Fort

11 Bliss, Texas, in February 1985.
2

HR 2793 RFS

1 SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON AGENTS AND ATTORNEYS FEES.

2 No amount exceeding 10 percent of a payment made

3 pursuant to section 1 may be paid to or received by any

4 agent or attorney in consideration for services rendered

5 in connection with the payment. Any person who violates

6 the provisions of this section shall be guilty of an infrac7 tion and shall be subject to a fine in the amount provided

8 under title 18, United States Code.

Passed the House of Representatives August 2,

1994.

Attest: DONNALD K. ANDERSON,

Clerk.
Exhibit 31(a)
 SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION
      a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is
made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this annual report is being prepared;b)
    
    designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such
internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to
provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the
preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles;c)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; andd)
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
(the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of the annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting.
  a)
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; andb)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
  /s/ Kevin L. BarnettKevin L. BarnettPresident, Chief Executive Officer, and Director
#### Shenyey, Appellant, *v.*Glasgow et al.; State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Appellee.

[Cite as *Shenyey v. Glasgow,*124 Ohio St.3d 237, 2010-Ohio-8.]

(No. 2009-0921

Submitted December 2, 2009

Decided January 12, 2010.)

Peter F. Shenyey, pro se.

Gallagher, Gams, Pryor, Tallan & Littrell, L.L.P., and James R. Gallagher, for appellee.

{¶ 1} The appeal as to appellant’s Proposition of Law No. IV is dismissed as having been improvidently accepted.

{¶ 2} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed as to appellant’s Proposition of Law Nos. I, II, and III on the authority of *State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Grace,*123 Ohio St.3d 471, 2009-Ohio-5934, 918 N.E.2d 135.

Moyer, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, and Cupp, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2677 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 274

103d CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 2677

                          [Report No. 103-173]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

  To authorize the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution to 
 plan, design, and construct the West Court of the National Museum of 
                       Natural History building.

_______________________________________________________________________

             November 8 (legislative day, November 2), 1993

                       Reported without amendment

                                                       Calendar No. 274
103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2677

                          [Report No. 103-173]

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

           September 14 (legislative day, September 7), 1993

                                Received

             October 20 (legislative day, October 13), 1993

  Read twice and referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration

             November 8 (legislative day, November 2), 1993

                Reported by Mr. Ford, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To authorize the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution to 
 plan, design, and construct the West Court of the National Museum of 
                       Natural History building.

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

SECTION 1. PLANNING, DESIGN, AND CONSTRUCTION OF WEST COURT OF NATIONAL 
              MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY BUILDING.

    The Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution is authorized 
to plan, design, and construct the West Court of the National Museum of 
Natural History building.

SEC. 2. FUNDING.

    No appropriated funds may be used to pay any expense of the 
planning, design, and construction authorized by section 1.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 13, 1993.

            Attest:

                                           DONNALD K. ANDERSON,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
Exhibit 10.59


 


REDACTED VERSION: Certain identified information has been
excluded pursuant to Regulation S-K, Item 601(b)(10) because it both (i) is not material and (ii) would be competitively harmful
if publicly disclosed.


 


SECOND AMENDMENT TO AUGUST 15, 2019


FIXED CONVERTIBLE PROMISSORY NOTE


 


THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE AUGUST 15, 2019 FIXED CONVERTIBLE
PROMISSORY NOTE (this “Amendment”) is made and entered into this ____ day of July 2020, by and between HELIX TECHNOLOGIES,
INC. (the “Company”), and [***] (“Lender”).


 


RECITALS


 


A. The Company and the Lender are parties to a 10%
Fixed Convertible Promissory Note, subsequently adjusted to 12% subject to Section 4.00(d) (the “Agreement”),
signed August 15, 2019 and the First Amendment to the Agreement dated June 16, 2020.


 


B. The Company and the Lender desire to further amend
the Agreement upon the terms and subject to the conditions set forth herein.


 


AGREEMENT


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals, the
mutual covenants and agreements set forth herein, and in the Agreement, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt
and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:


 


1. As of the date of this Amendment the “guaranteed”
interest is lowered from 10% to 9% per annum.


 


2. Each party agrees that the Principal
Amount, including accrued interest, as of the date of this Amendment, is $48,000.


 


3. The definition of “Conversion
Price” is deleted and replaced with the following:


 


“Conversion Price is the lesser of
$0.11 or 70% of the average of the five lowest daily VWAPs of the Company’s common stock during the 15 consecutive Trading
Days prior to the date on which Holder elects to convert all or part of the Note.”


 


4. The definition of “Maturity
Date” is deleted and replaced with the following:


 


“Maturity Date” shall be April
11, 2021.”


 


5. The Company and Lender mutually
agree that the Terms of Future Financings detailed in section 4.00(d) of the Agreement will apply prospectively from the date of
this Amendment for points 1 and 3 above.


 


6. Except as specifically amended or
modified by this Amendment, the terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain unimpaired, unaffected and unchanged in every
particular as set forth therein. Capitalized terms used and not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings set forth in the
Agreement.


 


7. This Amendment
may be executed in several counterparts and delivered by electronic transmission, each of which shall be deemed an original, but
which counterparts shall together constitute one and the same Amendment.



 






    


     


    

 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the
undersigned have caused this Amendment to be executed and delivered as of the date first written above.


 


	 	HELIX TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
	 	 
	 	By:	                          
	 	 	Scott Ogur, CFO
	 	 	 
	 	LENDER:
	 	 
	 	[***]
	 	 	 
	 	By:	 
	 	Name:  	 
	 	Title:
2009-1363.

#### Griffith v. State.

Franklin App. No. 08AP-964, 2009-Ohio-2854.

Lanzinger, J., dissents.
FDIC Quarterly FOIA Report

4th Quarter 2018 (July 1 – September 30, 2018)

1. Number of requests received during quarter: 79

2. Number of requests processed during quarter: 77

3. Number of requests backlogged at end of quarter: 1

4. Status of the FDIC’s ten overall oldest pending FOIA requests from the previous fiscal 

year (i.e., number closed during quarter): All ten (10) requests were closed during the 1st

quarter of FY2018
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on July 30, 1999, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), Southwest Research Institute has filed written notifications simultaneously with the  Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership status. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Davco Manufacturing, L.L.C., Saline, MI has been added as a party to this venture.                

No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and southwest Research Institute intends to file additional written notification disclosing all changes in membership.

                    On March 1, 1999, Southwest Research Institute filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on May 26, 1999 (64 FR 28521). A correction notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on July 11, 2000 (65 FR 42727).                

Constance K. Robinson,

Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 01-5068 Filed 3-1-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
<PAGE>

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 Quarterly Report of GBC Bancorp, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Larry
D. Key, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I, John Hopkins, 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, 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/  Larry D. Key
                                   --------------------------------------------
                                   Larry D. Key, President and C.E.O.
                                   (Principal Executive Officer)

                                   /s/ John Hopkins
                                   --------------------------------------------
                                   John Hopkins, C.F.O.
                                   (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)

November 12, 2004


                                      -6-
#### Antone L.A. KNOX, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Anita TRAMMELL, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 14-6069.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

July 1, 2014.

Antone Lamandingo Knox, McAlester, OK, pro se.

Before HARTZ, MeKAY, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges.

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*

MONROE G. McKAY, Circuit Judge.

Petitioner Antone Knox, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a certifícate of appealability to appeal the district court’s denial of his federal habeas petition. In his habeas petition, Petitioner challenged the state parole board’s denial of his request for parole. The district court concluded Petitioner was not enti-tied to habeas relief because Oklahoma’s parole system is discretionary and therefore does not give rise to a protected liberty interest. *See Malek v. Haun,*26 F.3d 1013, 1015 (10th Cir.1994); *see also Shabazz v. Keating,*977 P.2d 1089, 1093 (Okla.1999). The district court further concluded that the second claim in the petition, which was based on the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act, could not be brought in a habeas proceeding and should therefore be dismissed without prejudice.

After thoroughly reviewing Petitioner’s filings and the record on appeal, we conclude that reasonable jurists would not debate the district court’s resolution of this case. *See Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000). We therefore DENY Petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability and DISMISS the appeal. Petitioner has filed a motion for sanctions, in which he asks this court to inform him if any of the documents he mailed to the court are missing as a result of prison officials’ alleged tampering with his legal mail, and, if so, to impose sanctions on Defendant. We have received and reviewed all pertinent documents, and we accordingly DENY the motion for sanctions. Petitioner’s motion to proceed *in forma pauperis*on appeal is GRANTED.

*

 This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R.App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.