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


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350





In connection with the accompanying Annual Report of Yinfu Gold Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2011 (the “Report”), each of the undersigned officers of the Company, hereby certifies that to such officer’s knowledge:





(1)           The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. §78o(d)); and





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





Dated:  April 14, 2011By:
/s/ Wilson Dong Sheng HuangWilson Dong Sheng HuangChief Executive OfficerDated:  April 14, 2011By:
/s/ Charles Ying-Wai LamCharles Ying-Wai LamPrincipal Financial and Accounting Officer




The above certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-K or as a separate disclosure document.
Before the Second Division,

September 13, 1961

No. 66058.

#### Patrick and Graves et al. *v.*United States,

protests 60/7529, etc. (Galveston).

Opinion by

Kao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of golf caddy carts similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 64052, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       Jan-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                          Feb-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                            Apr-30-2000
<CASH>                                    4,894,691
<SECURITIES>                              1,046,955
<RECEIVABLES>                               975,618
<ALLOWANCES>                                      0
<INVENTORY>                               1,948,321
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            256,271
<PP&E>                                    3,324,132
<DEPRECIATION>                            1,445,874
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           11,891,861
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             0
<BONDS>                                           0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<COMMON>                                      4,891
<OTHER-SE>                                        0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      0
<SALES>                                   1,439,003
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          1,439,003
<CGS>                                       479,787
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               479,787
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            411,679
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            1,583
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (62,888)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (3,030)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (65,918)
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                      0
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (0.01)


</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mario GOMEZ-GARZA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 99-50622.

D.C. No. CR 98-1307-GHK.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 9, 2001.*

Decided July 19, 2001.

Before KOZINSKI, T.G. NELSON and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Mario Gomez-Garza appeals his conviction, pursuant to a guilty plea, and sentence for being an illegal alien found in the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.

Gomez-Garza’s attorney has filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and has moved to withdraw as counsel of record. Gomez-Garza did not file a pro se supplemental brief. Having conducted an independent review of the record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 83-84, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we conclude that there are no arguable appellate issues. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is *733GRANTED and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.1

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the *733courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

1

. Appellant’s motion to amend his opening brief by substituting one page is granted. Appellant's request to dismiss the appeal, as moot, is denied.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-19-00807-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF J.M.T., a Child

From the 408th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019-PA-00140

Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding

BEFORE THE EN BANC COURT 

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date and the panel’s opinion dated July 1, 

2020, the trial court’s order terminating the parent-child relationship between W.S. and J.M.T. is 

REVERSED and judgment is RENDERED denying the Department’s petition to terminate the 

parent-child relationship between W.S. and J.M.T.

SIGNED December 23, 2020.

________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
Case No. 14,835.

#### UNITED STATES v. COLLINS.

[1 Cranch, C. C. 592.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Dec. Term, 1809.

Bastardy—Witness—Likeness of Chii.d to Defendant—Confession—Judgment— Bond of Indemnity.

1. The mother of a bastard is a competent witness for the United States on an indictment of the supposed father, under the Maryland act of 1781 (chapter 13), and may be cross-examined as to her connection with other persons.

2. Evidence of a likeness of the child to its supposed father is not admissible.

3. The confession of the defendant having been given in evidence, he was not permitted to give evidence of his declarations at the same time, that others also had had connection with her.

4. The only judgment which the court can give upon a conviction under the statute is. that the defendant give security to indemnify the county from any charge for the maintenance of the child,

5. The order for paying £30 a year can only be made by a justice of the peace, under the act of 1796 (chapter 34).

Indictment [against David Collins] for not supporting a bastard child, under the act of Maryland of 1781 (chapter 13). The mother was received as a competent witness, although she was to be relieved from the charge of maintaining the child, by convicting the defendant.

Mr. Jones, for the United States,

objected to the cross-examination as to her connection with others.

THE COURT limited the inquiry to a period not more than twelve months nor less than six before the birth of the child. But permitted the examination within that period.

THE COURT refused to admit the testimony of witnesses to prove the likeness between the defendant and the child.

*545The confession of Collins being given in evidence against him,

• F. S. Key, for defendant,

asked whether Collins did not at the same time say that oth- , er persons also had had criminal conversation with her.

THE COURT refused to permit the question to be put.

The jury found the defendant guilty.

1

 [Reported by Hon. William Cranch, Chief Judge.]

THE COURT ordered the traverser to give security in $250 to indemnify the county; and for want of such security, committed him to the custody of the marshal. The next day he offered bail, and the counsel for the prosecution had included in the condition of the recognizance a clause that the traverser •should pay £30 per annum to the mother so long as she should have the custody of the infant; but the court ordered it struck out, that being a matter within the exclusive jurisdiction of a justice of the peace, under the Maryland act of 1796 (chapter 34).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE DIGITAL
INSIGHT CORPORATION FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          19,608
<SECURITIES>                                    24,243
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,783
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (212)
<INVENTORY>                                        700
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                56,962
<PP&E>                                          25,283
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (4,698)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 119,512
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           19,767
<BONDS>                                          3,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            25
<OTHER-SE>                                      95,772
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   119,512
<SALES>                                         22,822
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                22,822
<CGS>                                           12,799
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                37,459
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (25,789)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (25,789)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (25,789)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.12)


</TABLE>
From: pjacques@wideopenwest.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:57:34 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,

Patti Jacques

Rochester, MI 48307
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                             483
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      134
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      4,479
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 6,863
<PP&E>                                           8,049
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  16,533
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,880
<BONDS>                                          2,922
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            58
<OTHER-SE>                                       6,565
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    16,533
<SALES>                                          5,597
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,597
<CGS>                                            2,903
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,124
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  85
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (515)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (173)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (342)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (342)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.06)
        

</TABLE>
Case 2:05-cv-01848-JCC Document 10 Filed 11/29/05 Page 1 of 5
Case 2:05-cv-01848-JCC Document 10 Filed 11/29/05 Page 2 of 5
Case 2:05-cv-01848-JCC Document 10 Filed 11/29/05 Page 3 of 5
Case 2:05-cv-01848-JCC Document 10 Filed 11/29/05 Page 4 of 5
Case 2:05-cv-01848-JCC Document 10 Filed 11/29/05 Page 5 of 5
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 443 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                    September 18, 2007.
Whereas the 65th Infantry Regiment, the only Hispanic-segregated unit in United 
        States military history, was mandated by Congress to be comprised 
        primarily of Puerto Ricans;
Whereas the 65th Infantry Regiment became better known as the Borinqueneers from 
        the word Borinquen, the name that the native Taino Indians called Puerto 
        Rico;
Whereas the Borinqueneers, throughout their service in World War I, World War 
        II, and, most notably, the Korean War, served with distinction;
Whereas the Borinqueneers demonstrated their military prowess in Korea and 
        earned the respect and admiration of their fellow soldiers and military 
        authorities, most notably General Douglas MacArthur;
Whereas the Borinqueneers were sent to battle on the front lines in Korea and 
        participated in nine major campaigns during the Korean War;
Whereas the Borinqueneers made valuable contributions to the war effort, 
        including by suffering a tremendous number of casualties that was 
        disproportionate to the population of Puerto Rico;
Whereas the 65th Infantry Borinqueneers earned well-deserved praise, including 
        two United States Presidential Unit Citations, a Meritorious Unit 
        Commendation, and two Republic of Korea Unit Citations;
Whereas the 65th Infantry Regiment 1st Battalion continues its fine tradition as 
        an active unit in the Puerto Rico Army National Guard; and
Whereas Puerto Ricans have continued to volunteer freely and serve in the Armed 
        Forces and have served ably during wartime: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) recognizes the service of the 65th Infantry Borinqueneers during 
        the Korean War;
            (2) honors the people of Puerto Rico, who continue to serve and 
        volunteer for service in the Armed Forces and make sacrifices for the 
        country; and
            (3) commends all efforts to promote and preserve the history of the 
        65th Infantry Borinqueneers.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
From: garystar@optonline.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:16:48 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,

Gary Staropoi

Martinsville, NJ 08836
No. 58274.

protests 122331-K, etc. (New York).

#### Empire Liquor Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

For the reasons stated in *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 ORDER - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

RUSSELL J. YOUNG,

Plaintiff,

v.

SUSAN I. BAUR, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C05-5565 RBL/KLS

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

The Court, having reviewed the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Karen L.

Strombom, objections to the Report and Recommendation, if any, and the remaining record, does

hereby find and ORDER:

(1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation;

(2) Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss(Dkt. # 59) is GRANTED;

(3) Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Susan I. Baur are DISMISSED WITH

PREJUDICE;

(4) Defendant Susan I. Baur’s counterclaims against Plaintiff are DISMISSED WITH

PREJUDICE; and

Case 3:05-cv-05565-RBL-KLS Document 69 Filed 01/05/07 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 ORDER - 2

(5) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to Plaintiff, counsel for Defendants

and to the Hon. Karen L. Strombom.

DATED this 5th day of January, 2007.

ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-05565-RBL-KLS Document 69 Filed 01/05/07 Page 2 of 2
Before the Second Division,

September 5, 1967

No. P67/288.

#### The Rembar Co., Inc. *v.*United States, protests 64/333, etc. (New York).

Rao, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of trays (boats) similar in all material respects to those the subject of *The Rembar*Co., *Inc.*v. *United States*(57 Cust. Ct. 239, C.D. 2774), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                      AMERICAN NORTEL COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
                        COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE


                                                       2000         1999
                                                   3RD QUARTER   3RD QUARTER
<S>                                              <C>            <C>
BASIC EARNINGS PER SHARE: (NOTE 1)

Common shares outstanding, beginning of period      15,403,785   15,153,785

Effects of weighting shares:
   Weighted common shares issued                             -   (1,082,627)
                                                 -------------  ------------

Weighted average number of common shares            15,403,785   14,071,158
                                                 =============  ============
   outstanding

Net Income                                        2,051,309.69  $802,208.23
                                                 =============  ============

Earnings Per Share                                        0.13  $      0.06
                                                 =============  ============


DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE: (NOTE 1)

Common shares outstanding, beginning of period      15,403,785   15,153,785

Effects of weighting shares:

   Weighted common shares issued                             -   (1,082,627)
                                                                ------------
   10% convertible debentures                                -        5,844
                                                 -------------  ------------

Weighted average number of common shares and
   common equivalent shares outstanding             15,403,785   14,077,002
                                                 =============  ============

Net Income                                       $2,051,309.69  $802,208.23
                                                 =============  ============

Earnings Per Share                               $        0.13  $      0.06
                                                 =============  ============
</TABLE>

       See the accompanying notes to these unaudited financial statements


NOTE  1:
--------

     Earnings  per  common  share  and  common  equivalent share are computed by
dividing net income by the weighted average number of shares of common stock and
common  stock  equivalents  outstanding  during  the  period.  The Company's 10%
convertible  debentures  are  considered  to  be  common  stock  equivalents.
Consequently,  the  number  of  shares  issuable,  assuming  full  conversion
outstanding of these debentures as of the beginning of the fiscal year, is added
to  the number of common shares.  A fully diluted earnings per share is computed
assuming  conversion  of  all  debentures.


<PAGE>
Case No. 6,479.

#### HIKE v. PROVIDENCE, ETC., R. CO. et al.

[The case reported under above title in 6 O. G. 575, is the same as Case No. 11,163.]