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



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  filing of the  Quarterly
Report on Form 10-QSB for the Quarter Ended  February 28, 2005 (the "Report") by
Advanced Media Training, Inc.  ("Registrant"),  the undersigned hereby certifies
that:

1.       to the  best of my  knowledge,  the  Report  fully  complies  with  the
         requirements  of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act
         of 1934; and

2.       to the best of my knowledge,  the  information  contained in the Report
         fairly presents, in all material respects,  the financial condition and
         results of operations of Registrant.




April 12, 2005                           By:  /S/ BUDDY YOUNG
                                              ---------------------------------
                                              Buddy Young
                                              Chief Executive Officer and Chief
                                              Financial 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEFFREY HORSTMAN,

Plaintiff, 2:04-cv-1644-GEB-DAD-P

vs.

J. CANTU, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action

seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On December 20, 2006, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Neither

party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations, and defendants Cantu, Avery,

Stetina, and Orr have filed an answer to plaintiff’s amended complaint.

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be

supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis.

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01644-GEB-DAD Document 39 Filed 01/18/07 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

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed December 20, 2006, are adopted in

full;

2. Defendants’ June 19, 2006 motion to dismiss is denied as to defendant Orr and

granted as to defendants Borges, Demateo, Penner, Whisler, and Flohr; and

3. Plaintiff’s claims against defendants Borges, Demateo, Penner, Whisler, and

Flohr are dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies on

those claims before bringing this action.

Dated: January 17, 2007

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01644-GEB-DAD Document 39 Filed 01/18/07 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

             CORPORATE PROPERTY ASSOCIATES 16 - GLOBAL INCORPORATED

                  CERTIFICATION OF CO-CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERS
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Corporate Property Associates
16-Global Incorporated (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending
September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), we, William Polk Carey, Co-Chief Executive Officer
of the Company, and Gordon F. DuGan, Co-Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, to the best of our knowledge and belief, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

      (1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
            15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

/s/ William Polk Carey                    /s/ Gordon F. DuGan
    -------------------------------           -------------------------------

    William Polk Carey                        Gordon F. DuGan
    Chairman                                  Vice Chairman
    (Co-Chief Executive Officer)              (Co-Chief Executive Officer)
      11/5/2004                                 11/5/2004
    -------------------------------           -------------------------------
    Date                                      Date

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Corporate Property Associates
16-Global Incorporated and will be retained by Corporate Property Associates
16-Global Incorporated and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.
Before the Third Division,

December 7, 1954

No. 58568.

protests 176248-K, etc. (New York).

#### Julius Wile Sons & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, 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 plaintiff was sustained.
Exhibit 32.2

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Wired Associates Solutions Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending April 30, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Roy
Brown, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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 result of operations of
          the Company.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
16th day of June, 2008.


/s/ Roy Brown
------------------------------
Chief Financial Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Raszell Reeder, Appellant.

[634 NYS2d 513]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lipp, J.), rendered May 16, 1994, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and reckless endangerment in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

During the second day of jury selection, the defense counsel pointed out that the prosecutor’s last two peremptory challenges had been exercised against blacks and that, he believed, six of the prosecutor’s eight challenges on the first day had also been directed at blacks. The court responded that it had already heard the prosecutor’s reason for exercising one of his last two peremptory challenges because the prosecutor had previously sought to challenge that prospective juror for cause. The court stated that it would inquire as to the prosecutor’s last peremptory challenge, if the defense counsel wished. The prosecutor gave several race-neutral reasons for challenging the prospective juror, which the court accepted.

The defense counsel never objected to the court’s ruling accepting the explanations, never requested that the court inquire into the other six challenges exercised on the first day of jury selection, and at no time moved for a mistrial. Under *667these circumstances, the defendant’s sole contention on this issue, that the court erred by failing to inquire into the other challenges, is unpreserved for appellate review *(see, People v Cruz,*200 AD2d 581; *People v Bowman,*185 AD2d 891), and we decline to reach it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.

The defendant’s challenges to various remarks made by the prosecutor during his summation are, for the most part, unpreserved for appellate review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]). The defendant failed to request curative instructions or move for a mistrial once the court sustained his objections and/or issued curative instructions *(see, People v Rodriguez,*182 AD2d 844; *People v Lewis,*175 AD2d 885). In any event, while some of the prosecutor’s comments were improper, any error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt *(see, People v Vasquez,*212 AD2d 819). O’Brien, J. P., Joy, Altman and Florio, JJ., concur.
No. 46704.

#### Protests 66238-K, etc., of New York Mdse. Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

The atomizers in question similar to those the subject of Abstract 44140 were held dutiable at 60 percent under paragraph 218 (f) as claimed.
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

 While the court is not unsympathetic to the difficulties counsel has experienced with 1

CM/ECF, it is incumbent upon counsel to ensure a reliable method to receive filings in his cases

if he wishes to continue practice in this district. This court recommends counsel contact the

court’s IT department for assistance in confirming receipt of e-mailed orders in the future.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1867 WBS JFM

vs.

REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 

2363 FAIRVIEW LANE, etc., ORDER

Defendants.

 /

By order filed July 11, 2005, claimants Barbara and Richard Ryan were directed

to advise the court whether they have abandoned this litigation, based on their failure to appear at

this court’s July 7, 2005 hearing on defendants’ June 20, 2005 motion as well as their failure to

file a written opposition to said motion. On July 17, 2005, counsel for claimants filed a

declaration stating he did not receive the plaintiff’s June 20, 2005 motion. Good cause

appearing, defendants’ June 20, 2005 motion will be reset on this court’s August 25, 2005

calendar and claimants will be permitted to file a late opposition.1

Case 2:04-cv-01867-WBS -JFM Document 44 Filed 07/28/05 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

2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s June 20, 2005 motion to exclude claimants Barbara and Richard

Ryan’s Witnesses and Documents Not Previously Disclosed is reset for hearing on August 25,

2005, at 11:00 a.m. before the undersigned. 

2. Claimants Barbara and Richard Ryan shall file their opposition to the motion

no later than August 11, 2005; plaintiff’s reply shall be filed seven days thereafter.

3. The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this order on Barbara Ryan,

Richard Ryan and their attorney of record, Victor S. Haltom. 

 DATED: July 27, 2005.

001; fairview.res

Case 2:04-cv-01867-WBS -JFM Document 44 Filed 07/28/05 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit (13) b.



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,



AS ENACTED BY



SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the annual report on Form 20-F of Komatsu, Ltd. (the Company) for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Kenji Kinoshita, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (s) 1350, 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.



Date: August 31, 2004



By:

/s/ Kenji KinoshitaKenji KinoshitaSenior Executive OfficerChief Financial Officer




28
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 17-2832

___________________________

Donald R. Frazier, also known as Donald Muhammad

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

v.

City of Pine Bluff, Arkansas, A public body corporate; Mike Sweeney; Matthew

Henry; Jeff Hubanks, Chief Individually and His Official Capacity

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Pine Bluff

____________

Submitted: August 2, 2018

Filed: August 13, 2018

[Unpublished]

____________

Before GRUENDER, KELLY, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.
Donald Frazier appeals after the district court adversely granted summary 1

judgment in his civil rights action. 

Upon careful de novo review, we conclude that, as to the issues raised on

appeal, summary judgment was properly granted for the reasons stated by the district

court. See Odom v. Kaizer, 864 F.3d 920, 921 (8th Cir. 2017) (reviewing grant of

summary judgment de novo); see also Ahlberg v. Chrysler Corp., 481 F.3d 630, 638

(8th Cir. 2007) (stating that points not meaningfully argued on appeal were waived). 

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

The Honorable Brian S. Miller, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

1

the Eastern District of Arkansas.

-2-
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration 

          - [TA-W-61,003] 

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation was initiated on February 22, 2007, in response to a petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers at Yamaha Corporation of America, Grand Rapids, Michigan. 

This petitioning group of workers is covered by an earlier petition (TA-W-60,996) filed on February 21, 2007 that is the subject of an ongoing investigation for which a determination has not yet been issued. Consequently, further investigation in this case would duplicate efforts and serve no purpose; therefore the investigation has been terminated. 

Signed in Washington, DC, this 27th day of February 2007. 

Elliott S. Kushner, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E7-4067 Filed 3-7-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
No. 50032.

#### Protest 67005-K of Ringling Bros., Barnum & Bailey Combined Shows, Inc. (Tampa).

Opinion by

Erwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protest.
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATION**     I, Jon Garfield, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Clearant, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations, and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) forthe registrant and have:a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant is made known to us by others within the entity, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presentedin this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures asof the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andc) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s abilityto record, process, summarize, and report financial information; andb) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.         Date: November 14, 2005   /s/ JON GARFIELD             Jon Garfield      *Chief Financial Officer*      *(Principal Financial Officer)*
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### International Trade Commission

          - [Investigation No. 731-TA-739 (Second Review)] 

                    On the basis of the record [1]                                          developed in the subject five-year review, the United States International Trade Commission (Commission) determines,[2]                                          pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)), that revocation of the antidumping duty order on clad steel plate from Japan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.                 

## Background 

The Commission instituted this review on October 2, 2006 (71 FR 57996), and determined on January 5, 2007, that it would conduct an expedited review (72 FR 2554, January 19, 2007). 

The Commission's public report Clad Steel Plate from Japan (Inv. No. 731-TA-739) (Second Review), USITC Publication 3907, March 2007) will contain the views of the Commission developed during the review. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: March 5, 2007. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission.

# Footnotes

1.                             The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)).                     
        Back to Citation      

2.                             Commissioners Jennifer A. Hillman and Irving A. Williamson not participating.                     
        Back to Citation      

[FR Doc. E7-4144 Filed 3-7-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
July 1, 2015

Mr. Joshua West

3305 Pebble Beach Drive

Ap ar t ment 6

Conway

, AR 7 2034

Dear Mr. West :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from

part 21 Subpart H ; § § 61.113(a) and (b); 61.23(a), 91.109, 91.119

, 91.121, 91.151(a),

91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1) and (2), and 91.417(a) and (b) of Title 14, Code of Federal

Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your request and what you should

do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can n o t Process Your Request

We entered your exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA− 20 15−1327 ), but we are

unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does no t comply with

the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you

must send us all of the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would b e in the public interest; that is, how it would

benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the info rmation described

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do No t Hear From You

If we do not hear from yo u within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267

- 9677.

Sincerely,

B rittany New ton

Program Analyst

, Air men and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
No. 48481.

#### Protests 89711-K, etc., of Meletic Sea Food Co. et al. (St. Louis, etc.).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.