alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Corporate Property Associates 16  Global
Incorporated.
  /s/ Gordon F. DuGanGordon F. DuGanChief Executive Officer
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Corporate Property Associates 16  Global
Incorporated.
  /s/ Mark J. DeCesarisMark J. DeCesarisacting Chief Financial Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Lorenzo Grannison, Appellant.

[634 NYS2d 382]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau *465County (Calabrese, J.), rendered May 24, 1994, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and resisting arrest, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of those branches of the defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress physical evidence and a statement made by him to the police.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The record supports the County Court’s determination that the defendant was properly stopped by the police, and, in response thereto, abandoned the contraband which was the subject of the motion to suppress *(see, People v McRay,*51 NY2d 594; *People v Jones,*172 AD2d 265; *People v Boodle,*47 NY2d 398, *cert denied*444 US 969; *People v Parker,*163 AD2d 682). Accordingly, the defendant’s motion to suppress was properly denied. O’Brien, J. P., Pizzuto, Santucci and Krausman, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.02

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


In connection with the quarterly report of Essential Innovations Technology
Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended January 31, 2006, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Kenneth G.C. Telford, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, 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 my knowledge and belief:

         (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/ Kenneth G.C. Telford
--------------------------
Kenneth G.C. Telford
Chief Financial Officer
March 16, 2006

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
has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Before the Third Division,

November 7, 1951

No. 55989.

protests 61123-K, etc. (New York).

#### Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Cline, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain items of the merchandise consist of earthenware and china figures similar in all *347material respects to the figures passed upon in *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.*v. *United States*(39 C. C. P. A. 15, C. A. D. 458), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
| (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. |
|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                              |                                                                            |                              |
|---------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|
|                                              |                                                                            |                              |
|                                              |                                                                            |                              |
|                                         |                                                                       |                         |
|                                              | By:                                                                   | /s/ John                Chen |
|                                              | John                  ChenDirector                  and Chief Financial Officer |
| DATED:                May 15,                2006 |                                                                            |

----
EXHIBIT 32.2   SUNCOAST NATURALS, INC.

   Certification of Principal Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
         (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

I, Sean P. McCarthy, President of Suncoast Naturals, Inc. (the "Registrant"),
certify that to the best of my knowledge, based upon a review of the Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004 of the Registrant (the
"Report"):

      (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
      13(a)[15(d)] of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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


Dated: August 12, 2004        /s/ SEAN P. McCARTHY
                              -----------------------
                              Sean P. McCarthy
                              President
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jerome Cross, Appellant.

[635 NYS2d 473]

—Appeal by the de*358fendant from an amended judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Marlow, J.), rendered November 23, 1994, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court, upon a finding that he had violated a condition thereof, after a hearing, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon his previous conviction of attempted robbery in the second degree.

Ordered that the amended judgment is affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631; *cf, People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606). Sullivan, J. P., Thompson, Copertino, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.
# Table 20. Organics in sediment

Table 20	&P
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A22A0781. TRAVIS D. HODGES v. THE STATE.

In June 2002, Travis D. Hodges pled guilty to three counts of armed robbery.

Since his conviction, Hodges has filed multiple pro se motions in the trial court

challenging his plea and sentence, along with several appeals in this Court.

1

In 2017,

Hodges filed a motion for out-of-time appeal, asserting, in part, that his plea was not

knowingly and voluntarily given. The trial court denied the motion, and Hodges

appealed. We affirmed, determining that it was apparent from the record that

Hodges’s allegationsregarding the validity of his guilty plea lacked merit, so the trial

court did not err in denying his motion for out-of-time appeal. See Case No.

A18A0168 (Jun. 26, 2018). In October 2021, Hodgesfiled in the trial court a “motion

to vacate sentence and conviction,” again arguing that his plea was not knowingly

and voluntarily given. The court construed the filing as a motion to withdraw

Hodges’s guilty plea and denied the motion. Hodges filed this appeal.

Hodges is barred from seeking review of the trial court’s order denying his

motion to withdraw his guilty plea because he has already raised this issue in a

previous appeal, Case No. A18A0168. See Ross v. State, 310 Ga. App. 326, 327 (713

1 Many of his appeals have been dismissed. See Case Nos. A16A2083 (Aug.

2, 2016), A17A1125 (Feb. 22, 2017), A21A0485 (Nov. 23, 2020).

January 25, 2022
SE2d 438) (2011) (dismissal of previous appeal “constitutes binding law of the case”

and precludes appellate review of issues raised in previous appeal). See also Echols

v. State, 243 Ga. App. 775, 776 (534 SE2d 464) (2000) (“It is axiomatic that the same

issue cannot be relitigated ad infinitum.”). Accordingly, this appeal is hereby

DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

01/25/2022
(Reap. Dec. 10094)

#### W. J. Byrnes & Co. of N.Y., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 764735 1/2, etc.

(Decided November 6, 1961)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn*for the plaintiff.

*William H. Orrick, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

OliveR, Chief Judge:

Tbe appeals for reappraisement enumerated in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision on a written stipulation, reading as follows:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the parties hereto, subject to the approval of the court, as follows:

> (1) That this stipulation is limited to merchandise described on the invoices and entries covered by the appeals for reappraisement enumerated in Schedule “A” hereto attached and made a part hereof as “cigarette lighters” or “lighters”, with or without other words of description.

> (2) That as so limited, the merchandise and the issues are the same in all material respects as those involved in *W. J. Byrnes & Co. of New Yorlc, Inc.*v. *United States,*R.D. 10032, and that the record in the cited case be incorporated in the record of the appeals covered herein.

> (3) That on or about the dates of exportation of the merchandise involved herein, the prices at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers for exportation to the United States in the principal markets of the country of exportation, in the usual wholesale- quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, including the cost of packing and all other expenses incidental to placing the merchandise in condition packed ready for shipment to the United States, were equal to the entered values herein plus “inspection fee” if and as invoiced.

> (4) That such or similar merchandise was not freely offered for sale for home consumption in the country of exportation.

> (5) That the appeals enumerated in said Schedule “A” be submitted on this stipulation, the same being limited to the merchandise and issues described above and abandoned in all other respects.

On the agreed facts and following my cited decision on the law, I find that the proper basis for appraisement of the articles in question, as hereinabove identified, is export value, as defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, and that such, statutory value therefor is the entered values, plus “inspection fee,” if and as invoiced.

*503Tbe appeals for reappraisement are dismissed as to all other merchandise covered by the invoices involved herein.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
EXHIBIT 32.1


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


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Kronos Worldwide,  Inc. (the Company)
on Form  10-Q  for the  period  ended  September  30,  2004 as  filed  with  the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Harold C.
Simmons,  Chief  Executive  Officer of the Company,  and I, Gregory M. Swalwell,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  certify,  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 results of operations of the Company.




/s/ Harold C. Simmons
--------------------------
Harold C. Simmons
   Chief Executive Officer


/s/ Gregory M. Swalwell
--------------------------
Gregory M. Swalwell
   Chief Financial Officer


November 8, 2004


Note: The certification  the registrant  furnishes in this exhibit is not deemed
"filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the  Securities  Exchange Act of 1934,  as
amended,  or otherwise subject to the liabilities of that Section.  Registration
Statements or other documents filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission
shall not incorporate this exhibit by reference,  except as otherwise  expressly
stated in such filing.
EXHIBIT 32.1
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Form 10-KSB of MEDIANET GROUP TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2004, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Martin Berns, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, 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 my knowledge and belief:

         (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/ Martin Berns
Martin Berns
Chief Executive Officer


March 31, 2005
#### Charisma Green et al., Respondents, v Staten Island Hospital et al., Appellants.

[634 NYS2d 386]

—In an action to recover damages for, *inter alia,*medical malpractice, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Amann, J.), dated July 28, 1994, which denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 3101 (d) (1); (h) to compel the plaintiffs to respond to a supplemental demand for expert witness information.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendants’ motion to compel the plaintiffs to respond to a supplemental demand for expert witness information. Although the information requested by the defendants bore on the qualifications of the plaintiffs’ expert *(see,*CPLR 3101 [d] [1]; [i]; *Jasopersaud v Tao Gyoun Rho,*169 AD2d 184), the defendants did not serve their supplemental demand until after the note of issue was filed. Furthermore, a party is only required to amend or supplement its response to disclosure when information previously supplied is no longer correct and complete, if the failure to do so would be materially misleading *(see,*CPLR 3101 [h]). We agree with the Supreme Court that failure to disclose the additional information requested by the defendants would not materially mislead the defendants. Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Ritter, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondent

v. WILLIAM M. MYERS, Petitioner : : : : : : : : : : : No. 351 MAL 2014 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 18th day of November, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED
.
No. 64883.

#### Border Brokerage Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 59/9028, etc. (Seattle).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of fish similar in all material respects to the fish blocks the subject of *The Lee Herrmann Co., a/c The Coldwater Seafood Corp.*v. *United States*(43 Cust. Ct. 49, C.D. 2101), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
December 6, 1957

No. 61402.

protests 288355-K and 288966-K.

#### E. R. Squibb & Sons *v.*United States,

Plaintiff’s application for rehearing granted.
No. 55991.

protests 169371-K and 169362-K (New York).

#### Air Clearance Assn., Inc., and Southern California Bird & Pet Exchange *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Cline, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of live birds similar in ¿11 material respects to those the subject of *Alfred Mazer*v. *United States*(25 Cust. Ct. 67, C. D. 1265), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of East Coast Diversified Corporation (the“Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended October 31, 2005 (the“Report”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof, I, Frank Rovito, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

1. TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2. Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

/s/ Frank Rovito

Frank RovitoChief Financial OfficerDated: March 7, 2006

A signed original of this writtenstatement required by Section 906 has been provided to East Coast Diversified Corporationand will be retained by East Coast Diversified Corporation and furnished to the Securitiesand Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2007212EN.01000901.xml

| 11.9.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 212/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.9.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 212/9

---

Notice of the suspension of the standing invitation to tender for the sale at reduced prices of butter by the intervention agencies and for the grant of aid for cream, butter and concentrated butter

(2007/C 212/11)

In accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 1039/2007 (1), the standing invitations for:

1

| (a) | the sale at reduced prices of intervention butter bought in under Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 and intended for use in the manufacture of pastry products, ice-cream and other foodstuffs defined as ‘final products’ in Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1898/2005; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

the sale at reduced prices of intervention butter bought in under Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 and intended for use in the manufacture of pastry products, ice-cream and other foodstuffs defined as ‘final products’ in Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1898/2005;

| (b) | the grant of aid for using butter, concentrated butter and cream intended for use in the manufacture of pastry products, ice-cream and other foodstuffs defined as ‘final products’ in Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1898/2005; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

the grant of aid for using butter, concentrated butter and cream intended for use in the manufacture of pastry products, ice-cream and other foodstuffs defined as ‘final products’ in Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1898/2005;

| (c) | the grant of aid for concentrated butter intended for direct consumption in the Community |
| --- | --- |

(c)

the grant of aid for concentrated butter intended for direct consumption in the Community

are suspended with effect from 12 September 2007.

---

(1)  OJ L 238, 11.9.2007, p. 28.

1

---
Case No. 13,806.

#### TAYLOR v. SMITH et al.

[3 Cranch, C. C. 241.] *1*

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Dec. 1827.

Shipping — Master—Copartner—Action against Copartners.

One partner in a steamboat company, who acted as master and engineer, cannot maintain an action at law against his copartners, for compensation as engineer.

Indebitatus assumpsit, for compensation as engineer of the steamboat Surprize, the plaintiff [Robert Taylor] having been employed and paid as master.

It appeared in evidence, that he himself was one of the owners of the boat, and a member of the company; so that he was defendant as well as plaintiff.

Mr. Jones, for the defendants,

contended that it was a partnership, and that the plaintiff could not sue his copartners at law.

Mr. J. ‘Dunlop, contra,

contended that part-owners are not copartners, and cited the case of Magruder v. Bowie [Case No. 8,904], in. this court, at May term, 1825, which was an action at law, by an owner of one fourth of the ship Alleghany, for his share of the freight, against the ship’s husbands, who had received the whole, and who were also part-owners, in which the court said that the interests of part-owners were separate and not joint, and that one might maintain an action, for his share of the freight, against others who had received the whole.

THE COURT,

however, in the .present case, inclined to think that the plaintiff must be considered as a partner; and that as his claim was for services on board the boat, he, being himself a copartner, would have to bear his proportion of the value of those services, and the defendants had a right to have the whole partnership concerns settled, and the plaintiff’s share ascertained before they could be compelled *to pay him*any thing.

The plaintiff became nonsuit, with leave to move to reinstate the cause. A motion was made accordingly, which was overruled, June 5th, 1838.