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

**Certification Pursuant to**

**18 U.S.C. §1350,**

**As Adopted Pursuant to**

**Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of IFTH Acquisition Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the three and nine months ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael J. Feder,  Acting Chief Executive Officer, certify, to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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/ Michael J. Feder                           |
|--------|------------------------------------------------|
|   | Michael J. FederActing Chief Executive Officer |
|   |                                           |
|   | August 14, 2008                                |
From: wtrikard@cableone.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:56:00 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

william Rikard

Pope, MS 38658
Before the Third Division,

March 7, 1966

No. 69819.

protest 64/19863 (New York).

#### Naftone, Inc. v. United States,

Richardson, Judge:

The merchandise of this case consists of mounted camera lenses which were imported at New York from West Germany. It appears from the official papers before the court on the calendar call that the importer’s attorneys, by letter dated April 22, 1964, made formal request of the collector on plaintiff-importer’s behalf for reliquidation of the involved entry pursuant to 19 U.S.C.A., section 1520(c)(1) (section 520(c)(1), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended), for the correction of clerical error said to have been made in the invoice. It further appears from the record that the collector did not answer or act upon the request for reliquidation, but instead, transmitted the request to this court along with the official papers as a protest.

*887Inasmuch as the collector has not yet acted upon the request for reliquidation, no valid protest against the collector’s decision on such request is before the court. As such, the instant proceeding is dismissed without prejudice.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND ACTING CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, As Adopted Pursuant

To Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned officer of Intelsat Corporation (the Company) hereby certifies that to such officers
knowledge, the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
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: August 13, 2008 |  |  |  | /s/ DAVID
MCGLADE                                         
|                      |  |  |  | David McGlade                                             
|                      |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer and Acting Chief Financial Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and is not
being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
Exhibit 10.1 [millstream10k033111ex101001.jpg]   [millstream10k033111ex101002.jpg]   [millstream10k033111ex101003.jpg]   [millstream10k033111ex101004.jpg]   [millstream10k033111ex101005.jpg]   [millstream10k033111ex101006.jpg]   [millstream10k033111ex101007.jpg]   [millstream10k033111ex101008.jpg]   [millstream10k033111ex101009.jpg]   [millstream10k033111ex101010.jpg]   [millstream10k033111ex101011.jpg]   [millstream10k033111ex101012.jpg]   [millstream10k033111ex101013.jpg]   [millstream10k033111ex101014.jpg]   [millstream10k033111ex101015.jpg]   [millstream10k033111ex101016.jpg]   [millstream10k033111ex101017.jpg]
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1267 

Congratulating the Mount Olive College Trojans for winning the 2008 National Collegiate Athletic Association Division II Men’s Baseball National 

Championship. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 11, 2008 

Mr. JONES of North Carolina (for himself, Mr. BUTTERFIELD, and Mr. 

HAYES) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Education and Labor 

RESOLUTION 

Congratulating the Mount Olive College Trojans for winning 

the 2008 National Collegiate Athletic Association Division II Men’s Baseball National Championship. 

Whereas the Mount Olive College Trojans of Mount Olive, 

North Carolina, defeated the Ouachita Baptist University 

Tigers of Arkadelphia, Arkansas, 6 to 2, on May 31, 

2008, to become the 2008 National Collegiate Athletic 

Association (NCAA) Division II Men’s Baseball National 

Champions; 

Whereas pitcher Casey Hodges of Mount Olive College reaped 

the win for the Trojans, giving up just 2 runs on 7 hits 

in his 8 innings, and striking out 6 batters; 


erowe on PRODPC61 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 1267 IH 

Whereas Mount Olive College went 4–0 in the tournament, 

and finished the 2007–2008 season with a record of 58– 

6; 

Whereas this was the Trojan’s first national championship in 

any sport; 

Whereas Mount Olive Head Coach Carl Lancaster summed 

up the victory, saying, ‘‘This is a dream come true[;] We 

are extremely excited to bring this to Mount Olive’’; 

Whereas Mount Olive College carries on the continuing tradition of North Carolina schools winning NCAA championships; 

Whereas Mount Olive College was founded in 1951, and in 

2001 celebrated its 50th anniversary; and 

Whereas Mount Olive College serves 700 traditional students 

at the Mount Olive location and 3,800 working adults 

throughout North Carolina, in Goldsboro, New Bern, Research Triangle Park, Washington, and Wilmington: 

Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives con2 gratulates the Mount Olive College Trojans for winning 

3 the 2008 National Collegiate Athletic Association Division 

4 II Men’s Baseball National Championship. 

Æ 


erowe on PRODPC61 with BILLS
NO. 07

- 11

- 00295

- CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL E

JULY 26 , 2011

IN RE: JASON MIEARS

Before CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ. and BOYD, S.J. 1

MEMORANDUM OPINION Pending before the Court are a motion to stay proceedings and a petition for “writ

of audita querela ” filed as an original proceeding on July 14, 2011, by Jason Miears. Miears, who is acting pro se , asks us to stay all “appellate proceedings” in four criminal cases which, according to his pleadings, are pending against him in the 397th District Court of Bexar County. In the body of his petition, Miears asks for an “order by estoppel” enjoining the Fourth Court of Appeals “from deciding” the four cases. Also by the petition, Miears asks us to assume appellate jurisdiction “as if [he] had been convicted in the City of Amarillo,” and then to review a plea agreement.

At the outset, we note that no record accompanies Miears’ petition, and in other respects it falls considerably short of meeting the requirements of a petition in an original proceeding. Tex. R. App. P. 52.3. More fundamentally, however, his petition

1 John T. Boyd, Chief Justice (Ret.), Seventh Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment.2

demonstrates no basis for this court’s jurisdiction to grant the relief he requests. Tex. R. App. P. 52.7. Miears has not supplied, nor do we find, any authority for the recognition

of the writ of audita querela in Texas practice or its availability in a court of appeals. 2 Even more importantly, however, Bexar County is not located within the Seventh Court of Appeals Distri ct. Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.201(e),(h) (West Supp. 2010). This court’s appellate jurisdiction has not been invoked with regard to any of the criminal cases mentioned in Miears’ pleadings. 3 We see no reason to believe we have authority

to interfere wit h the judicial action of a Bexar County district court as Miears’ requests, nor that of our sister appellate court. Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221(a) (writ power to enforce court’s jurisdiction), (b) (mandamus against certain judges of court of appeals’

di strict) (West 2004).

Accordingly, we dismiss for want of jurisdiction Miears’ motion for stay, his petition for writ of audita querela, and, to the extent intended as a separate motion, his request for an order by estoppel. If, in his pleadings now befor e us, Miears has requested any additional relief, that request also is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

James T. Campbell Justice Do not publish.

2 “The common law writ of audita querela permitted a defendant to obtain relief against a judgment or execution because of some defense or discharge arising subsequent to the rendition of the judgment.” Massey v. United States, 581 F.3d 172, 174 (3d Cir. 2009) (per curiam). In light of the Fed eral All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, the writ of audita querela is said to have availability in federal criminal cases “to the extent that it fills gaps in the current system of post

- conviction relief.” Id

. 3 Nor, for that matter, is Miears a party to any other proceeding pending in this court.
No. 63779.

protests 58/20601-10167, etc. (Chicago).

#### J. E. Bernard & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with oral stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as that the subject of Abstract 62951, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
From: leodda@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:40:07 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

claire didier

Rayne, LA 70578
No. 63792.

protests 112527-K, etc. (New York).

#### Lehmann Imports, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Richardson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *R. C. Williams & Co., Inc.*(40 C.C.P.A. 130, C.A.D. 508), and *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C.D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL

AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent,

v.

JORGE MORENO, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 22-0262 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

Nos. CR1999-011811

 CR1996-013572

 CR1999-009096

The Honorable Jennifer E. Green, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix

By Krista Wood

Counsel for Respondent

Jorge Moreno, Florence

Petitioner

FILED 12-13-2022
STATE v. MORENO

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma, Judge Cynthia J. Bailey, and Vice 

Chief Judge David B. Gass delivered the following decision.

PER CURIAM:

¶1 Petitioner Jorge Moreno seeks review of the superior court’s 

order denying his petition for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant to 

Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1. This is Moreno’s sixth petition.

¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or legal error, this court will not 

disturb a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief. See 

State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573, 577 ¶ 19 (2012). Petitioner has the burden to 

show that the superior court erred in denying the petition for postconviction relief. See State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 537, 538 ¶ 1 (App. 2011).

¶3 This court has reviewed the record in this matter, the order 

denying the petition for post-conviction relief and the petition for review. 

This court finds the petitioner has not established error. 

¶4 This court grants review but denies relief.
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





In connection with the Annual Report of Universal Solar Technology, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Wensheng Chen, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my 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.





Date:August 6, 2014





/s/ Wensheng ChenWensheng Chen

Principal Executive Officer
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
  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 Partnership.
 By: 
Name:
    
    /s/ Freddie M. Kotek

Freddie M. KotekTitle:
    
    Chief Executive Officer of
the Managing General PartnerDate:
    
    March 30, 2011
From: jsmschroeder@msn.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:19:07 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Stephanie Schroeder

Minneapolis, MN 55434
​

**EXHIBIT**** ****13.2**

**PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION**

**PURSUANT T`O 18 U.S.C. SECTION**** ****1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION**** ****906 OF THE**

**SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF**** ****2002**

        I, Anthony Pagano, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Genmab A/S, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

        (1)   The Annual Report on Form 20-F of Genmab A/S for the period ended December 31, 2022 (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 Genmab A/S.

| x                       | ​ |
|-------------------------|---------|
| Date: February 22, 2023 | ​ |
| ​                 | ​ |
| /s/ Anthony Pagano      | ​ |

​

AMERICAS/2017215013.2

​

----
No. 65965.

#### M. E. Dey & Company, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 59/6796 (Milwaukee).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of hydraulic veneering presses similar in all material respects to those the subject of *W. C. Sullivan & Company*v. *United States*(46 Cust. Ct. 31, C.D. 2229), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: soonok17@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:08:29 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

soonok cho

Valencia, CA 91355