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

In connection with this Report on Form 10-Q of Summit Financial Services Group, Inc. (the
Company), for the Period ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Marshall T. Leeds, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and
President of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, do hereby certify, to my knowledge 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/ Marshall T. Leeds                                       
|Marshall T. Leeds                                           
|Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President
|Dated: August 14, 2008
#### Anastasia Magalios, Appellant, v Philip R. Cannistra, Jr., Respondent.

[635 NYS2d 496]

—In a negligence action to re*603cover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lockman, J.), dated June 16, 1994, which denied her motion to vacate an order of the same court, dated February 16, 1994, entered upon her default, dismissing the complaint for failure to comply with court-ordered disclosure.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for her default in failing to oppose the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint *(see, Vanderhoff v Boutsikos,*209 AD2d 611). Mangano, P. J., Miller, Santucci and Hart, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Omar Spruill, Also Known as Spruil, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 1018]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Egitto, J.), rendered May 19, 1993, convicting him of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Pizzuto, Santucci and Krausman, JJ., concur.
**EXHIBIT 32.1****CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created bySection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, theundersigned officer of Triple Net Properties, LLC, the Managerof NNN 2003 Value Fund, LLC (the “Company”) herebycertifies, to his knowledge, that:          (i) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of    the Company for the period ended June 30, 2005 (the    “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of    Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the    Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and           (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly    presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and    results of operations of the Company.     /s/ Anthony W. Thompson           Anthony W. Thompson *Chief Executive Officer*     Triple Net Properties, LLC,     the Manager of NNN 2003 Value Fund, LLCDate: August 24, 2005     A signed original of this written statement required bySection 906 has been provide to the Company and will beretained by the Company and will be retained by the Company andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staffupon request.     The foregoing certification is being furnished with theCompany’s Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30,2005 pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is notbeing filed for purposes of Section 18 of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended, and it is not to beincorporated by reference into any filing of the Company,whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of anygeneral information language in such filing.
EXHIBIT 13.2



ALESTRA, S. DE R.L. DE C.V.



SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER



I, Patricio E. de la Garza, the Chief Financial and Administrative Officer of Alestra, S. de R.L. de C.V. (the Company), hereby
certify pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that, to the best of my knowledge:



1. the Companys annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2003, to which this statement is filed as an exhibit (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: December 29, 2004



/s/    Patricio E. de la GarzaPatricio E. de la Garza Chief Financial and Administrative Officer
No. 56521.

protests 153959-K, etc. (New York).

#### The Creative Art Printing Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Rao, J.

The protests were dismissed.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8292 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8292

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase penalties for 
            unauthorized disclosure of taxpayer information.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 8, 2024

    Mr. Smith of Missouri (for himself, Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Smith of 
 Nebraska, Mr. Kelly of Pennsylvania, Mr. Schweikert, Mr. LaHood, Mr. 
  Wenstrup, Mr. Arrington, Mr. Ferguson, Mr. Estes, Mr. Smucker, Mr. 
   Hern, Mrs. Miller of West Virginia, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Kustoff, Mr. 
Fitzpatrick, Mr. Steube, Ms. Tenney, Mrs. Fischbach, Mr. Moore of Utah, 
   Mrs. Steel, Ms. Van Duyne, Mr. Feenstra, Ms. Malliotakis, and Mr. 
    Carey) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase penalties for 
            unauthorized disclosure of taxpayer information.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Taxpayer Data Protection Act''.

SEC. 2. INCREASE IN PENALTIES FOR UNAUTHORIZED DISCLOSURES OF TAXPAYER 
              INFORMATION.

    (a) In General.--Paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (4), and (5) of section 
7213(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 are each amended by 
striking ``$5,000, or imprisonment of not more than 5 years'' and 
inserting ``$250,000, or imprisonment of not more than 10 years''.
    (b) Disclosures Affecting Multiple Taxpayers Treated as Multiple 
Violations.--Section 7213(a) of such Code is amended by adding at the 
end the following new paragraph:
            ``(6) Disclosures affecting multiple taxpayers treated as 
        multiple violations.--For purposes of paragraphs (1), (2), (3), 
        (4), and (5), any violation of any such paragraph which affects 
        more than 1 taxpayer shall be treated as a separate violation 
        with respect to each such taxpayer.''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this subsection shall 
apply to disclosures made after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
(Reap. Dec. 8467)

#### Inter Maritime Fwdg. Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 882225, etc.

*382(Decided July 14, 1955)

*Tompkins & Tompkins*for the plaintiff.

*Warren E. Burger,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Wilson, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule *“A,”*hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between counsel for the Plaintiff and the Assistant Attorney General for the United States, Defendant, that the items marked *“A”*and initialed LL by Examiner Louis Lister on the invoices covered by the above-named reappraisement appeals, all of which items were advanced in value by the Appraiser, consist of worsted suitings exported from England.

> That when said items were exported from England they were not freely offered for sale either for home consumption to all purchasers in the principal markets of England, nor were they freely offered for sale in the principal markets of England for exportation to the United States, nor were they freely offered for sale in the principal markets of the United States to all purchasers, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, and that the Appraiser has determined that neither a foreign value nor an export value nor a United States value, as set forth in Section 402 (c) (d) and (e) can be ascertained.

> That the entered values per yard of the said items accurately represent the cost of production as that term is defined in Section 402 (f), Tariff Act of 1930.

> That the above-named reappraisement appeals are submitted for decision upon this stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find tbe cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402 (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise identified on the invoices by the items marked “A” and initialed L. L. by Examiner Louis Lister, and that such values were the entered values per yard.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
#### ARTHUR H. FEIGENSON, *ET AL.,*PLAINTIFFS-PETITIONERS, v. CHARLES S. FEIGENSON, *ET AL.,*DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

April 27, 1964. Denied.

*Mr. Isadore Qlauberman*and *Mr. Sheldon A. Weiss*for the petitioners.

*Messrs. McCarter & English, Mr. Merritt Lane, Jr.*and *Mr. Michael D. Loprete*for the respondents.

On petition for certification to Superior Court, Appellate Division.
Before the Second Division,

December 22, 1954

No. 58629.

protest 204573-K (Los Angeles).

#### J. L. Domann *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

From an examination of the papers in the case, the pourt found nothing tending in any way to overcome the presumption of correct*478ness attaching to the decision of the collector. The protest was therefore overruled.
**Exhibit 32**

 

**Written Statement of Chief Executive Officer and ChiefFinancial OfficerPursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officerand the Chief Financial Officer of VIA NET.WORKS, Inc. (the “Company”), eachhereby certifies that, to his knowledge on the date hereof:

 

(a) the Form 10-K of the Company for the yearended December 31, 2004 filed on the date hereof with the Securities andExchange Commission (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(b) the information contained in the Reportfairly represents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

 

 
|   | /s/ Ray Walsh           |   |
|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|   | Ray Walsh               |
|   | Chief Executive Officer |
|   | April  26, 2005         |
|   |                    |
|   | /s/ Cameron Mackenzie   |   |
|   | Cameron  Mackenzie      |
|   | Chief Financial Officer |
|   | April  26, 2005         |
|        |                         |        |  |

 

----

 

----
Before the First Division,

January 4, 1940

No. 42942.

#### Protest 3351-K of Georg Jensen Handmade Silverware, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Brown, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *United States*v. *Heinrich Herrmann*(26 C. C. P. A. 292, C. A. D. 30) the clothes brushes in question were held dutiable at 50 percent under paragraph 1506 as claimed.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AUGUST 13, 2015

NO. 03-13-00698-CV

Appellant, Doreen Rubio// Cross-Appellant, Jamie Walsh

v.

Appellees, Jamie Walsh; Emmet Walsh; Ellen Thornton, Individually; Ellen Thornton, 

Trustee; and Ellen Thornton, Trustee// Cross-Appellee, Doreen Rubio

APPEAL FROM 53RD DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES GOODWIN, BOURLAND, AND SHANNON*

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE SHANNON

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the district court on July 25, 2013. Having 

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error 

in the district court’s judgment. Therefore, the Court affirms the district court’s judgment. The 

appellant shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below.

* Before Bob E. Shannon, Chief Justice (retired), Third Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment. 

See Tex. Gov’t Code § 74.003(b).
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 21.1

               Subsidiaries of Mediacom Communications Corporation
               ---------------------------------------------------

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                       State of Incorporation            Names under which
         Subsidiary                       or Organization            subsidiary does business
         ----------                       ---------------            ------------------------
<S>                                          <C>                <C>
Mediacom LLC                                 New York           Mediacom LLC
Mediacom Arizona LLC                         Delaware           Mediacom Arizona Cable Network LLC
Mediacom California LLC                      Delaware           Mediacom California LLC
Mediacom Capital Corporation                 New York           Mediacom Capital Corporation
Mediacom Delaware LLC                        Delaware           Mediacom Delaware LLC
                                                                Maryland Mediacom Delaware LLC
Mediacom Illinois LLC                        Delaware           Mediacom Illinois LLC
Mediacom Indiana LLC                         Delaware           Mediacom Indiana LLC
Mediacom Indiana Partnerco LLC               Delaware           Mediacom Indiana Partnerco LLC
Mediacom Indiana Holdings, L.P.              Delaware           Mediacom Indiana Holdings, L.P.
Mediacom Iowa LLC                            Delaware           Mediacom Iowa LLC
Mediacom Minnesota LLC                       Delaware           Mediacom Minnesota LLC
Mediacom Southeast LLC                       Delaware           Mediacom Southeast LLC
Mediacom Wisconsin LLC                       Delaware           Mediacom Wisconsin LLC
Zylstra Communications Corporation           Minnesota          Zylstra Communications Corporation
Illini Cable Holding, Inc.                   Illinois           Illini Cable Holding, Inc.
Illini Cablevision of Illinois, Inc.         Illinois           Illini Cablevision of Illinois, Inc.
Mediacom Broadband LLC                       Delaware           Mediacom Broadband LLC
Mediacom Broadband Corporation               Delaware           Mediacom Broadband Corporation
MCC Georgia LLC                              Delaware           MCC Georgia LLC
MCC Illinois LLC                             Delaware           MCC Illinois LLC
MCC Iowa LLC                                 Delaware           MCC Iowa LLC
MCC Missouri LLC                             Delaware           MCC Missouri LLC
</TABLE>
<Page>



EXHIBIT 10.12

                          AMENDMENT TO PROMISSORY NOTE

      This agreement is to amend certain provisions of that certain $616,000
Promissory Note dated April 18, 2001 (the "Note") from Kevin G. Kerns
("Executive") and payable to Apropos Technology, Inc., an Illinois corporation
(the "Company"). Terms used herein but not defined herein shall have the
meanings ascribed to such terms as set forth in the Note.

      The references to April 1, 2002 in the Note are hereby replaced with April
1, 2003.

      The references to January 2, 2004 in the Note are hereby replaced with
January 2, 2005.

      Agreed and accepted to this 25th day of March, 2002.

/s/Kevin G. Kerns                         Apropos Technology, Inc.
-----------------
Executive
                                          By:/s/Francis J. Leonard
                                            ----------------------
                                          Its: Chief Financial Officer
                                          Title:
No. 46797.

#### Protest 952672-G/11347 of Frank L. Allen, Inc. (New Orleans).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

The only witness, the manager of the plaintiff corporation, testified that the merchandise was invoiced as “7 Pcs. Parts of sugar quadruple effect” and 9 crates of “cast iron valves”; that “one of such parts is-a condenser used to condense the vapors which are boiled off the juices derived from the sugar-cane”; that a sugar mill could not be operated efficiently without such a machine; that the “valves” are “used in feeding vacuum pans used to evaporate the sugar syrup to grain”; and that he did not know of any sugar mill that did not have these valves. On redirect examination he testified that the chief use of the parts constituting the imported merchandise in question was in the sugar industry, in his own experience. On the record presented the merchandise in question was held entitled to free entry under paragraph 1604 as claimed.
**Exhibit
      32.2**





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


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**


**OF
      THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





The
      undersigned, Xiaoling Li, Chief Financial Officer of TRAVEL HUNT HOLDINGS,
      INC.
      (the “Company”), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:





1.  The
      Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2008
      (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





2.  Information
      contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
      condition and results of operation of the Company.





IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned has executed this statement this 20th
      day of May 2008.





/s/
                Xiaoling LiXiaoling
                LiChief
                Financial Officer(Principal
                Financial Officer)





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Travel Hunt Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by Travel Hunt Holdings, Inc.
      and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.





The
      forgoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange
      Commission pursuant to § 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not being filed for
      purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
      and
      is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether
      made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation
      language in such filing.
#### United States *v.*W. R. Zanes & Co.

No. 6295.

Entry No. 457-D.

Invoice dated Mexico, D. F., April 3, 1945.

Certified April 6, 1945.

Entered at Dallas, Tex., May 2, 1945.

(Decided July 24, 1946)

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General *(Joseph E. Weil,*special attorney), for the plaintiff.

Defendant not represented by counsel.

Cline, Judge:

This is an appeal for reappraisement filed by the collector of customs at the port of Galveston. The merchandise under appraisement consists of leather baseball gloves, invoiced as cowhide fielders gloves, imported from Mexico on April 26, 1945. The invoice gives the purchase price as 9.50 Mexican currency per unit and the current price for home consumption as 10.00 Mexican currency.

At the trial plaintiff called R. D. Hancock, an employee of W. R. Zanes & Co., the defendant herein. Mr. Hancock testified that the merchandise herein had been ordered from the firm of Deportes Reyes Hermanos on January 1, 1945; that it was exported on April 26, 1945, at an invoice price of 9.50 Mexican currency each; and that it was entered and appraised at 10.00 pesos each plus containers and stamp tax. It appeared further that between the date of purchase and the date of exportation the firm of Deportes Reyes Hermanos changed its name to Manufactura de Articules de Deportes and that the invoice price of a purchase of cowhide fielders gloves from this exporter made on April 15, 1945, was 10.50 pesos each, plus containers and packing, plus stamp tax.

Counsel for the Government stated at the trial that the importer informed Government officials of the purchase at the higher price, but could not amend the entry herein because it had already been appraised.

The merchandise invoiced as cowhide fielders gloves is appraised at 10.50 Mexican pesos each, plus containers, packing, and 0.88 per centum sales tax. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
No. 51065.

#### Protest 954850-G/87904 of Butler Bros. (Chicago).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of bonbon dishes similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Butler Bros.*(33 C. C. P. A. 22, C. A. D. 310). In accordance therewith the *270merchandise was held properly dutiable at 70 percent under paragraph 212 without' the additional assessment of 10 cents per dozen pieces.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kevin Murray, Appellant.

[634 NYS2d 404]

—Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate a decision and order of this Court dated February 21, 1995 *(People v Murray,*212 AD2d 738), affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered October 8,1992, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.

Ordered that the application is denied.

The defendant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel *(see, Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745). Mangano, P. J., O’Brien, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.