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



CERTIFICATION
OF

CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER

OF REGO PAYMENT
ARCHITECTURES, INC.

PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In connection
with the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A Amendment No. 1 of Rego Payment Architectures, Inc. (the "Company") for the year
ended December 31, 2019, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, David Knight, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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:  May 28,
    2020 | By: | /s/ David Knight        | 
|----------------------- | --- | ----------------------- | 
|                        |     | David Knight            | 
|                        |     | Chief Executive Officer |
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

27

28 ORDER- 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

JAMES ERNEST DICKERSON,

Petitioner,

v.

CAROL PORTER,

Respondent.

Case No. C06-5110RJB

ORDER DENYING ALL

PENDING MOTIONS

This 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b) and local Rules MJR 3 and 4. Plaintiff has filed a complaint and been given in

forma pauperis status. (Dkt. # 5).

The court reviewed the complaint and was unable to read portions of the document. (Dkt. #

1 pages 3 and 6). The court ordered plaintiff to amend or re submit his complaint. (Dkt. # 7). 

Plaintiff has not complied and instead has filed, a motion for subpoena duces tecum, (Dkt. # 11), a

motion to produce documents, (Dkt. # 12), and a motion for accelerated review, (Dkt. # 12).

The court still does not have a viable complaint before it and plaintiff is now in contempt of

Case 3:06-cv-05110-RJB Document 14 Filed 05/09/06 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

27

28 ORDER- 2

the court order to amend as the time for amending has past. The court gave plaintiff over one

month, until April, 28th, 2006 to amend.

All outstanding motions are DENIED.

The clerk is directed to send a copy of this order to plaintiff.

DATED this 9th day of May, 2006.

/S/ J. Kelley Arnold

J. Kelley Arnold

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05110-RJB Document 14 Filed 05/09/06 Page 2 of 2
No. 67607.

#### J. J. Newberry Co. *v.*United States,

protest 62/14068 (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of cotton flannel sport shirts, not composed in any part of tuck-ings, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
EXHIBIT 32



In connection with the Annual Report of United Cannabis Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2015 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), Earnest Blackmon, the Principal Executive and Financial Officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of their 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 the Company.





|               |     |                                                            
|-------------- | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------
|April 26, 2016 | By: | /s/ Earnest Blackmon                                       
|               |     | Earnest Blackmon, Principal Executive and Financial Officer
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title: Nitratedeposits in the Amargosa region, southeastern California**
 
Report | Plates: 1530
 
SuDoc Number:I 19.3:724
Item Number:0620 (online)
CGP systemNumber: 000958126
 
July 27, 2018
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

27

28

 ORDER

Page - 1

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

EYVETTE WELLS

 Plaintiff,

v.

McFARLAND CASCADE POLE &

LUMBER CO., a Washington corporation,

Defendant.

Case No. C05-5730 RBL

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

This matter is before the court on the Defendant’s Motion for Relief from Discovery Deadline and to

Compel Compliance with the Court’s Earlier Discovery Order [Dkt. #28]. This Motion follows two prior

Orders compelling the Plaintiff to engage in discovery and to prosecute her claims, as well as a status

conference in which the court sought to clearly explain the consequences of continued delays. [See Dkt. Nos.

13, 26 and 27.]

According to the Defendants, the Plaintiff has not yet paid the earlier monetary sanction and continues

to be non-cooperative and non-responsive with respect to ongoing discovery issues. The Plaintiff has not

responded to the Defendant’s motion. Under the circumstances, there is no point in additional monetary

sanctions, or in continuing the discovery deadlines. 

Case 3:05-cv-05730-RBL Document 31 Filed 11/09/06 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

27

28

 ORDER

Page - 2

Therefore, this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The earlier monetary sanction is

VACATED and the Defendant’s Motion [Dkt. #28] and the Parties’ Stipulated Protective Order [Dkt. #30]

are DENIED as moot. 

DATED this 9th day of November, 2006.

ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-05730-RBL Document 31 Filed 11/09/06 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  The undersigned hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to their knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended March 31, 2011 of Rangeford Resources, Inc. (the Company) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information contained in such periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in such report.  Very truly yours,   /s/ Frederick ZieglerFrederick ZieglerChief Executive Officer/s/ Frederick ZieglerFrederick ZieglerChief Financial OfficerDated: May 25, 2011   A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to Kat Racing, Inc. and will be furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
---

|Coded Tables | 
|------------ | 



|These data are released whenever there are code changes.                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Complete file (2 MB PDF)Cover page and table of contents (650 KB PDF)
Summary tables (205 KB PDF)
Flows tables (550 KB PDF)
Level tables (525 KB PDF)
Balance sheet tables (70 KB PDF)
Supplementary tables (110 KB PDF)
Integrated macroeconomic accounts table (290 KB PDF)

|These files are available in Acrobat (PDF 3) format only.Obtaining the free Acrobat Reader from the Adobe Web Site
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Release dates | 
Announcements | 
Coded tables | Historical data | About| Technical Q&AsCurrent release | 
Screen reader |  
PDF (2 MB) | 
Data Download Program (DDP)  | Preliminary Z.1 Code Updates

Statistical releases

---

Home Economic research and data  Accessibility Contact Us  Last update: December 9, 2013
AO 450 (Rev. 6/85) Judgment in a Civil Caso o

United States District Court

‘WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE
PROPET USA, INC., JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE
Plaintiff, CASE NUMBER: C06-0186-MAT
v.
LLOYD SHUGART,
Defendant.

_X_ Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have been tried and the jury
has rendered its verdict.

_ Decision by Court. This action came to consideration before the Court. The issues have been considered
and a decision has been rendered.

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED

Plaintiff Propet USA, Inc.’s Complaint seeking declaratory relief is denied with prejudice. On the
counterclaim, Defendant Shugart is awarded the following damages from Plaintiff Propet USA, Inc.: copyright
infringement statutory damages, $500,000, removal of copyright management information, $500,000; for failure
to return original images, $303,000. A permanent injunction is also awarded in favor of Defendant Shugart.

AL
Dated this 24\ day of. Se patie , 2008.

BRUCE RIFKIN
Clerk

Ma Dus

Deputy Clerk‘

A A
{TREO NG A 1

06-CV-00186-JGM
---

Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION OFCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF
FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Each of the undersigned hereby
certifies, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his capacity as an officer of Asia Green
Agriculture Corporation (the Company), that, to his knowledge, the Annual
Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2010, fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such
report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operation of the Company as of the dates and for the periods
presented in the financial statements included in such report.

|Dated: March 31, 2011 | /s/
      Zhan Youdai                          
|--------------------- | -----------------------------------------------
|                      | Zhan Youdai, Chief Executive Officer           
|                      | (Principal Executive Officer)                  
|                      |                                                
|Dated: March 31, 2011 | /s/
      Tsang Yin Chiu Stanley               
|                      | Tsang Yin Chiu Stanley, Chief Financial Officer
|                      | (Principal Financial Officer)                  

---
**EXHIBIT 12.1**

**Certification**

I, Shengcheng Wang, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of China Mass Media Corp. (the “Company”); 

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4. The Company’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Company andhave: 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to bedesigned under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared; 

(b) [omitted pursuant to the guidance of Release No. 33-8238 (June 5, 2003), Release No. 33-8392(February 24, 2004), Release No. 33-8545 (March 2, 2005) and Release No. 33-8760 (December 15, 2006)]; 

(c)Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and 

(d) Disclosed in this annual report any change in the Company’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

5. The Company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the Company’s auditors and the audit committee of the Company’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the Company’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 have a significant role in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting. 

Date: June 30, 2009
March 25, 1963

No. 67545.

Appeal 5122.

#### Dolliff & Co. *v.*United States.

C.D. 2356. Appeal dismissed January 8, 1963.
EX-10.6(a)



 Exhibit 10.6(a) 

522 Fifth Avenue                 

New York, NY 10036         
  





 
 June 1, 2017 

Graham Capital Management, L.P. 

Rock Ledge Financial Center 
 40
Highland Avenue 
 Rowayton, CT 06853 

Attention: Mr. Paul Sedlack 

Re:   Management Agreement Renewals 

Dear Mr. Sedlack: 
 We are writing with
respect to your management agreements concerning the commodity pools to which reference is made below (the “Management Agreements”). We are extending the term of the Management Agreements through June 30, 2018 and all other provisions of
the Management Agreements will remain unchanged. 
  

	 	•	 	 Diversified 2000 Futures Fund L.P. 



 

	 	•	 	 Tactical Diversified Futures Fund L.P. 



 

	 	•	 	 CMF Graham Capital Master Fund L.P. 



 

	 	•	 	 MSMF Custom Solutions Fund L.P. 



Please acknowledge receipt of this modification by signing one copy of this letter and returning it to the attention of Mr. Patrick T. Egan at 522
Fifth Avenue – 7th Floor, New York, NY 10036. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 212-296-6808. 

Very truly yours, 
 CERES
MANAGED FUTURES LLC 
  

			
	 By:
	 	 /s/ Patrick T. Egan

		 	 Patrick T. Egan

		 	 President and Director


 GRAHAM CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, L.P. 
  

			
	 By:
	 	 /s/ Paul Sedlack

	 Print Name: Paul Sedlack, COO

	 PE/tr
Before the Third Division,

April 11, 1963

No. 67595.

#### Otagiri Mercantile Co., Inc., and Hoyt, Shepston & Sciaroni et al. *v.*United States,

protests 62/2007, etc. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of stone lanterns similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Otagiri Mercantile Co., Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(44 Cust. Ct. 184, C.D. 2173), 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

27

28

ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

CELERINO CARRASCO,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALBERTO GONZALES, et al.,

Defendant.

Case No. C06-5106RBL

ORDER DISMISSING

FRIVOLOUS COMPLAINT

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §

1915

 The Court, having reviewed the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge J. Kelley

Arnold, 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 complaint is DISMISSED; 

(3) Plaintiff’s pending motions are DENIED, as being moot;

(4) The Clerk is directed to terminate this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and to count

this as a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); and

(5) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to plaintiff and to the Hon. J. Kelley

Arnold.

DATED this 4th day of October, 2006.

ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-05106-RBL Document 13 Filed 10/04/06 Page 1 of 1
Before the Third Division,

January 20, 1955

No. 58715.

protest 224200-K (New York).

#### Louis Aisenstein & Bros., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

From the testimony, it appeared that the items in dispute were transposed on the invoice, the movements being invoiced at 17 Swiss francs and the cases at 39 Swiss francs. The manager of plaintiff’s import department testified that he noted the transposition of the figures on the invoice and instructed the customhouse broker to make entry at 17 Swiss francs per case and 39 Swiss francs per movement. The broker testified that he made cross-arrows on the invoice to indicate the transposition of figures and that entry was made in accordance with the instructions received from the plaintiff. The customs examiner testified that he noted the transposition of the figures and the crossed arrows, indicating the correct unit values, and that he accepted the entered values, reporting them as 17 Swiss francs per ease and 39 Swiss francs per movement. At the trial, Government counsel conceded that the items in question were appraised as entered. Counsel for the Government has notified the court that, in view of the examiner’s statement that he noted and corrected the error in the invoice unit price and that appraisement was made at the correct unit price, no brief would be filed on behalf of the Government. On the record presented, it was held that the liquidation was in error in that it was not based upon the final appraised value (section 503, Tariff Act of 1930, as amended). Accordingly, the collector was directed to reliquidate on the basis of 17 Swiss francs per watchcase and 39 Swiss francs per movement as to the merchandise contained in case No. MWB. 606.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 748 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 748

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3584) to amend title XXI 
  of the Social Security Act to extend funding for 18 months for the 
   State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 16, 2007

   Mr. Aderholt (for himself and Mr. Barton of Texas) submitted the 
   following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Rules

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3584) to amend title XXI 
  of the Social Security Act to extend funding for 18 months for the 
   State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), and for other 
                               purposes.

    Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution the House shall 
immediately proceed to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3584) to 
amend title XXI of the Social Security Act to extend funding for 18 
months for the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), and 
for other purposes. All points of order against the bill and against 
its consideration are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. The 
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill to final 
passage without intervening motion except: (1) two hours of debate 
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce; and (2) one motion to 
recommit.
                                 <all>
```
#### In the Matter of Neoptolemos Cleopa, Petitioner, v Joan M. Durante, Respondent.

[632 NYS2d 968]

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition, *inter alia,*to compel the Honorable Joan Marie Durante to recuse herself from hearing or deciding any matters relating to the case of *Petras v Cleopa*pending in the Supreme Court, Queens County.

Motion by the respondent to dismiss the proceeding.

Upon the petition and papers filed in support of the proceeding, and the papers filed in opposition thereto and in support of the motion, it is

Ordered that the motion is granted; and it is further,

Adjudged that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

"Because of its extraordinary nature, prohibition is available only where there is a clear legal right, and then only when a court—in cases where judicial authority is challenged—acts or threatens to act either without jurisdiction or in excess of its authorized powers” *(Matter of Holtzman v Goldman,*71 NY2d 564, 569; *see, Matter of Rush v Mordue,*68 NY2d 348, 352). The petitioner here has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Sullivan, Rosenblatt and Thompson, JJ., concur.
Stipulated Voluntary Motion to Dismiss – 1

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

LAW OFFICE OF DAVID SCHOENBORN

308 E. 17th Street 

Vancouver, WA 98663 

Tel 360-693-9998 

Fax 360-694-3533 

 The Honorable Judge Franklin D. Burgess 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 

AT TACOMA 

ANNE HALL, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

TOTAL PROFIT CONTROL, INC., a 

California business. 

Defendant. 

 No. 05-5746FDB 

 ORDER TO DISMISS 

 

Pursuant to the Stipulated Voluntary Motion to Dismiss, IT IS SO ORDERED that 

this case is hereby dismissed with prejudice. 

Dated this 27th day of March 2006. 

AFRANKLIN D. BURGESS 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 3:05-cv-05746-FDB Document 12 Filed 03/28/06 Page 1 of 1