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




CERTIFICATION





Each of the undersigned officers of American Smooth Wave Ventures, Inc. (the "Company") hereby certifies that, to his knowledge, the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K to which this certification is attached (the "Report"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), 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: March 29, 2011

/s/  Baofu DingBaofu Ding, Chief Executive Officer

(the Principal Executive Officer)





Date: March 29, 2011

/s/  Wing Sang LoWing Sang Lo, Chief Financial Officer

(the Principal Financial Officer)





This certification is being furnished and not filed, and shall not be incorporated into any document for any purpose, under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or the Securities Act.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ricardo Smith, Appellant.

[632 NYS2d 591]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lagaña, J.), rendered July 17, 1990, convicting him of murder in the second degree and robbery in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

In a prior opinion and order dated November 6, 1989, this Court reversed the defendant’s conviction of murder in the *548second degree (felony murder) due to an error in the charge to the jury, and the matter was remitted to the Supreme Court for a new trial *(People v Smith,*152 AD2d 56). The defendant subsequently pleaded guilty to murder in the second degree and robbery in the first degree. This appeal ensued. The defendant currently contends that this Court erred by directing a new trial instead of removing the case to the Family Court pursuant to CPL 310.85 (3).

The defendant’s present contention is not properly before this Court. The defendant never sought reargument of or leave to appeal this Court’s prior opinion and order *(see generally,*CPL 470.50, 450.90 [2] [b]), and his present contention is procedurally defective.

In any event, the defendant has not demonstrated that the prior opinion and order was so infected with manifest error as to warrant a departure from the doctrine of the law of the case *(see, People v Martinez,*194 AD2d 741; *People v Barnes,*155 AD2d 468; *People v Manino,*90 AD2d 777). Rather, it is clear that the error discussed in this court’s prior opinion and order made it impossible to determine whether the defendant’s conviction of felony murder was based on the commission of an offense for which he could be held criminally responsible pursuant to Penal Law § 30.00 (2). Accordingly, the appropriate remedy was to direct a new trial, and the defendant’s contention to the contrary is without merit. Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.
N O T F O RP U B L IC A T IO N IN W E S T ' S H AWA I # I RE P O R T S A N D P A C IF IC RE P O R T E R



### NO. CAAP-19-0000867

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS O F THE STATE OF HAWAI # I
LORD HARRY S. UMAYAM, Claimant-Appellant, v. SUTTER HEALTH PACIFIC, Employer-Appellee, and FIRMS CLAIMS SERVICES, Insurance Carrier-Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS APPEALS BOARD

( CASE NO. AB 2018-082; DCD NO. 2-15-48583)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL (By: Ginoza, Chief Judge, Leonard and Wadsworth, JJ.)Upon consideration of self-represented ClaimantAppellant Lord Harry S. Umayam's (Umayam) March 11, 2020 letter requesting to "stop the appeal," which the court construes as a motion to dismiss the appeal, the papers in support, the record, and there being no opposition, it appears that (1) the appeal has not been docketed; (2) Umayam seeks to dismiss the appeal; and (3) dismissal is authorized by Hawai # i Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 42(a).

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion is granted and the appeal is dismissed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, April 17, 2020. /s/ Lisa M. Ginoza Chief Judge /s/ Katherine G. Leonard Associate Judge /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth Associate Judge

Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-19-0000867 17-APR-2020 10:21 AM
Order entered May 27, 2016

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05-16-00535-CV

IN RE AMERICAN REALTY TRUST, INC. AND ART MIDWEST, INC., Relators

Original Proceeding from the 44th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 04-05724



### ORDER

Based on the Court’s opin ion of this date, we DENY relators’ May 5, 2016 petition for

writ of mandamus.

We LIFT the temporary stay imposed by our May 10, 2016 order.

We ORDER relators to bear the costs of this original proceeding.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS JUSTICE
Exhibit 32



SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION



The undersigned certify that:



(1)    The accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009, 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 accompanying Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date:  May 14, 2009

        /s/ Scott F. DrillScott F. DrillPresident and Chief Executive Officer(principal executive officer)




Date:  May 14, 2009

        /s/ Justin W. ShiremanJustin W. ShiremanVice President, Finance andChief Financial Officer(principal financial officer)










---
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 9, 2014

Order 

September 9, 2014

149073(65)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v

RAHIM OMARKHAN LOCKRIDGE,

Defendant-Appellant.

SC: 149073

COA: 310649

Oakland CC: 2011-238930-FC

________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of the defendant-appellant for a second 

extension to the time for filing his brief on appeal is GRANTED. The brief will be 

accepted as timely filed if filed on or before September 23, 2014.
Testimony of lawrence Utvakto NHSTA/EPA Hearing on Phase 2Truck Standards August 

### 18th, 2015 My name is Lawrence Litvak, and I live in Mill Valley, California
. I amtestifying today as a private atizen:- Forthe past seven years I havetaught as a lecturer in public policy and urban studies at Stanford University, after a career encompassing business, government and the nonprofit sector
. I have a degree in Public Policy and a B.A
. in Economics. I am testifying today in support ofstrengthening the standards forfuel efficiency and greenhouse emissions. First, I would like to comment 

### from my perspective as someone who teaches public policy
. Good making is explicit about its values and evaluative aiteria, considers alternative approaches to the problem, and relies strongly on evidence as a basis for making its recommendations
. I'vetaken a your Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and the accompanying documents
. The process you are foil ·ng in developing the Phase 2 truck standards meetsthese principles of good policy analysis, and I cou offer yourwork as a positive example for my students. Moreover, in general, fuel efficiency standards h ve been a solid example of how government policies can improve the general welfare of its citizens
. I also testify as a citizen whose community isthreatened by the effects of climate change. I reside · st north of San Francisco
. We are already experiencing the predicted drier conditions, and the dairy farmers in our county are suffering 

### from reduced grazing and the grape growers are facing water shortages. I live only one milefrom San Francisco Bay. I am personally lucky because my house is about 170 eet above sea level. But in ourtown, miles of roads, thousands of homes, and many schools, including the ones where my children went, are very 

### dose to sea level. Depending on how high carbon dioxide I vels and resulting sea levels go, these will haveto 

### be protected by dikes, moved, orabandoned
. Sowh ther measures like the Phase 2 truck standards are set aggressively will have a profound impact on the community I live in. I live across the Bay from Richmond, California, a largely low income community which is home to lot of industry serviced by heavy-dutytrucks, including a large Chevron refinery. These standards will uce the health risk to communities like Richmond by reducing toxic air pollution 

### from idling trucks and o refineries
. 

## lns.· l.k
. Because there is so much at stake, we musttake full advantage of__.. and cost-effective ap to reducing emissions. So I want to urge the NHSTA and EPAto go beyond their current proposal r Phase 2, and to adopt the standards recommended bythe Union ofConcerned Scientists which 

### wi achieve 40% savings by 2025
. Ifthe final proposal is strengthened in line with the UCS analysis, 2035 itwould avoid an additional 40 million metrictons of global warming emissions annually-equivale to shutting down 12 coal-fired power plants
. Thank you forthe opportunity totestifytoday, and I hope that you strengthen the proposed standa s moving forward
. Lawrence Litvak lalitvak@stanford.edu 415-595-0090 14 Midhill Drive Mill Valley, CA 94941
ORDER DENYING 

WITNESS DEPOSITION 

 PLATT & BUESCHER 

 Attorneys at Law 

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

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

 The Honorable Marsha J. Pechman 

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

HENRY C. ROSENAU 

 Defendant. 

NO. CR06-157MJP 

 [PROPOSED] 

ORDER DENYING 

WITNESS DEPOSITION 

 

This matter having come on before the undersigned Court on motion of the Government 

for authorization to permit the taking of a witness deposition. 

 Having considered the files and records herein, and pleadings of the parties, the Court 

denies the government’s motion to authorize foreign deposition, and holds that, pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 15 and in the interests of justice, the government is denied 

authorization to take the deposition of witness Kip John Whelpley in the above-entitled matter. 

SO ORDERED this ______ day of August, 2011. 

 ___________________________________ 

 MARSHA J. PECHMAN 

 United States District Court Judge 

 ROSENAU/CR06-157MJP P.O. Box 727 

 Coupeville, WA 98239-0727 

 Phone: (360) 678-6777 

 Fax: (360) 678-0323

Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP Document 29 Filed 08/18/11 Page 1 of 2
ORDER DENYING 

WITNESS DEPOSITION 

 ROSENAU/CR06-157MJP

 PLATT & BUESCHER 

 Attorneys at Law 

 P.O. Box 727 

 Coupeville, WA 98239-0727 

 Phone: (360) 678-6777 

 Fax: (360) 678-0323

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

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

Presented by: 

s/ Craig Platt 

CRAIG PLATT 

Attorney for Defendant 

Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP Document 29 Filed 08/18/11 Page 2 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 - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

NICHOLAS S. ROY,

Plaintiff,

v.

VICTORIA BARSHAW, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-5296FDB

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE

ORDER

The matter comes before the court on plaintiff’s motion requesting a protective order prohibiting

further retaliation and harassment (Doc. 59). After considering this motion and the balance of the record,

the court finds and orders as follows:

Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED as being moot. The undersigned has reviewed the motion along

with the pending dispositive motions. On this same date, the undersigned has recommended dismissal of

this matter. Accordingly, the motion for a protective order appears to be moot. 

DATED this 4th day of October, 2007.

/s/ J. Kelley Arnold J. Kelley Arnold

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05296-FDB Document 65 Filed 10/04/07 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 53 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. J. RES. 53

To express the sense of the Congress that the President should award a 
      Presidential Unit Citation to the final crew of the U.S.S. 
             INDIANAPOLIS, which was sunk on July 30, 1945.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 11, 1998

 Mr. Inouye introduced the following joint resolution; which was read 
         twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
To express the sense of the Congress that the President should award a 
      Presidential Unit Citation to the final crew of the U.S.S. 
             INDIANAPOLIS, which was sunk on July 30, 1945.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled,   

SECTION. 1. PRESIDENTIAL UNIT CITATION FOR FINAL CREW OF THE U.S.S. 
              INDIANAPOLIS.

    (a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress that the 
President should award a Presidential Unit Citation to the final crew 
of the U.S.S. INDIANAPOLIS (CA-35) in recognition of the courage and 
fortitude displayed by the members of that crew in the face of 
extraordinary hardship and adversity after their ship was torpedoed and 
sunk on July 30, 1945.
    (b) Waiver of Time Limitation.--A citation described in subsection 
(a) may be made without regard to any provision of law or regulation 
prescribing a time limitation that is otherwise applicable with respect 
to recommendation for, or the award of, such a citation.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) AND SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 (a) and (b))  I, S. Emerson Lybbert, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of TGFIN Holdings, Inc. (the Company) certify that: (1) the quarterly report of TGFIN Holdings, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 (the Quarterly Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o (d); and (2) the information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.   By:  /s/ S. Emerson Lybbert Name: S. Emerson Lybbert Title: Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)  Date: April 30, 2009   PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) AND SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 (a) and (b)  I, S. Emerson Lybbert, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of TGFIN Holdings, Inc. (the Company) certify that: (1) the quarterly report of TGFIN Holdings, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 (the Quarterly Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o (d); and (2) the information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.    By: /s/ S. Emerson Lybbert Name: S. Emerson Lybbert Title: Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)  Date: April 30, 2009   1
ATTACHMENT 3

Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP Document 176-3 Filed 10/25/12 Page 1 of 2
No. 58285.

protest 222350-K (New York).

#### D. C. Andrews & Company, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the issues are similar to those involved in Abstract 57104, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Before the Third Division,

October 23, 1967

No. P67/357.

#### Alexanders Dept. Stores, Inc. *v.*United States, protest 66/42214 (New York).

Richardson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the issue involved in the foregoing protest is similar in all material respects to that the subject of *United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc.*(34 CCPA 112, C.A.D. 351), the claim of the plaintiff 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

DETENTION ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT W. D. OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff,

v.

JOSE ANTONIO HERNANDEZ-NAVA,

 Defendant.

Case No. 06-5033M

DETENTION ORDER

THE COURT, having conducted a detention hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3142, finds that no condition or combination

of conditions which defendant can meet will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required and/or the safety of any

other person and the community.

This finding is based on 1) the nature and circumstances of the offense(s) charged, including whether the offense is a

crime of violence or involves a narcotic drug; 2) the weight of the evidence against the person; 3) the history and characteristics of

the person including those set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)(3)(A)(B); and 4) the nature and seriousness of the danger release would

impose to any person or the community.

Findings of Fact/ Statement of Reasons for Detention

Presumptive Reasons/Unrebutted:

 ( ) Conviction of a Federal offense involving a crime of violence. 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(A)

 ( ) Potential maximum sentence of life imprisonment or death. 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(B)

 ( X ) Potential maximum sentence of 10+ years as prescribed in the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C.§801 et seq.), the

Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C.§951 et seq.) Or the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (46

U.S.C. App. 1901 et seq.)

 ( ) Convictions of two or more offenses described in subparagraphs (A) through (C) of 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(1) of two or more

State or local offenses that would have been offenses described in said subparagraphs if a circumstance giving rise to

Federal jurisdiction had existed, or a combination of such offenses.

Safety Reasons:

 ( ) Defendant is currently on probation/supervision resulting from a prior offense.

 ( ) Defendant was on bond on other charges at time of alleged occurrences herein.

 ( ) Defendant’s prior criminal history.

 ( ) 

Flight Risk/Appearance Reasons:

 ( X ) Defendant’s lack of community ties and resources..

 ( x ) Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainer.

 ( ) Detainer(s)/Warrant(s) from other jurisdictions.

 ( ) Failures to appear for past court proceedings.

 ( X ) Court is advised defendant is in the United States illegally.

Order of Detention

< The defendant shall be committed to the custody of the Attorney General for confinement in a corrections facility

separate, to the extent practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody pending appeal,

without prejudice to review..

< The defendant shall be afforded reasonable opportunity for private consultation with counsel.

< The defendant shall on order of a court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the Government, be delivered

to a United States marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection with a court proceeding.

 February 16, 2006.

s/ J. Kelley Arnold 

J. Kelley Arnold, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cr-05129-FDB Document 6 Filed 02/16/06 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 12.1



|                                                                                  |  |                             |           |      |   |          
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | --------------------------- | --------- | ---- | - | ---------
|                                                                                  |  | For Years EndedDecember 31,
|Computation of Earnings to Fixed Charges                                          |  | 2006                        |           | 2005
|                                                                                  |  | (dollars in thousands)     
|Earnings                                                                          |  |                             |           |      |   |          
|Income before assessments and cumulative effect of change in accounting principle |  | $                           | 35,087    |      | $ | 2,512    
|Fixed charges                                                                     |  |                             | 2,456,559 |      |   | 1,865,428
|                                                                                  |  |                             |           |      |   |          
|Earnings available for fixed charges                                              |  | $                           | 2,491,646 |      | $ | 1,867,940
|Fixed Charges                                                                     |  |                             |           |      |   |          
|Interest expense on consolidated obligations                                      |  | $                           | 2,413,097 |      | $ | 1,822,266
|Interest expense on deposits and borrowings                                       |  |                             | 42,876    |      |   | 41,863   
|Interest portion of rental expense                                                |  |                             | 586       |      |   | 1,299    
|                                                                                  |  |                             |           |      |   |          
|Fixed charges                                                                     |  | $                           | 2,456,559 |      | $ | 1,865,428
|Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                                                |  |                             | 1.01      |      |   | 1.00