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

I, George Polyhronopolous, hereby 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Sunergy, Inc. for
      the period ended June 30, 2009 (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 Sunergy, Inc.                                                                

Dated: August 25, 2009



| | /s/
      George Polyhronopolous                                    
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------
| | George Polyhronopolous                                              
| | Treasurer, Secretary and Director                                   
| | (Principal Financial Officer and Principal
      Accounting Officer)
| | Sunergy, Inc.                                                       



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 Sunergy, Inc.
and will be retained by Sunergy, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
#### Mary Ann Mulvlhill, Sole Surviving Ex’rx, etc., v. Arthur J. Donnelly, Testamentary Guardian, etc.

Motion denied on appellant’s stipulating to argue in February.
#### Commonwealth *v.*Stephenson, Appellant.

Submitted November 21, 1968.

Before Bell, C. J., Jones, Eagen, O’Brien and Roberts, JJ.

*Harold Stephenson,*appellant, in propria persona.

*Edward G. Rendell*and *James D. Crawford,*Assistant District Attorneys, *Richard A. Sprague,*First Assistant District Attorney, and *Arlen Specter,*District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

*168January 15, 1969:

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Roberts,

Appellant pleaded guilty to murder generally in 1966 and was found guilty of murder in the second degree. In 1967 appellant filed a petition under the Post Conviction Hearing Act alleging that his guilty plea was not knowingly and intelligently entered. After a hearing appellant’s petition was denied and appellant took this appeal.

Appellant filed his brief pro se and the Commonwealth moved that the case be continued to permit the court below to appoint counsel. Appellant opposed both the continuance and the appointment, and accordingly the motion was denied.

While appellant’s pro se brief is hardly a model of clarity, it is clear that he primarily is maintaining that his guilty plea was not knowingly and intelligently made. However there was a record examination of appellant at which the judge attempted to ascertain whether appellant understood his plea. Furthermore at appellant’s PCHA hearing, trial counsel testified that he and appellant had discussed the plea and their strategy in general and that appellant understood the consequences of the plea. This certainly constitutes sufficient evidence to sustain the finding of the hearing judge.

Appellant also makes vague claims challenging his indictment and arguing that his own counsel introduced statements against appellant’s interest. Even if meritorious, since appellant entered a guilty plea, both of these claims are in effect waived. E.g., *Commonwealth v. Garrett,*425 Pa. 594, 229 A. 2d 922 (1967). If appellant is claiming that the statements introduced came at his degree of guilt hearing, he could not have been prejudiced because he only was found guilty of murder in the second degree.

*169The order of the Court of Oyer and Terminer of Philadelphia County is affirmed.

Mr. Justice Cohen took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Exhibit 32.6

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C.§1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of
the Frontier Long/Short Commodity Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned
hereby certifies, to the best of his knowledge:



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



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Frontier Long/Short
Commodity Series.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                                                                                                                                   
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Robert J. Enck                                                                                                                                                                 
|Robert J. Enck President
and Chief Executive Officer of Equinox Fund Management, LLC, the Managing Owner of the Frontier Long/Short Commodity Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund
|                                                                                                                                                                                   
|/s/ Brent Bales                                                                                                                                                                    
|Brent Bales Chief Financial
Officer of Equinox Fund Management, LLC, the Managing Owner of the Frontier Long/Short Commodity Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund                 

Date: May 12, 2011
EXHIBIT 32.4

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER OF

UCDP FINANCE, INC.

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In
connection with the quarterly report of UCDP Finance, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending April 1, 2007 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Tracey L.
Stockwell, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



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



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

Dated: May 11, 2007



By:

/S/ TRACEY L. STOCKWELLTracey L. StockwellTreasurer (Principal Financial Officer)




29
##### 



EXHIBIT 32
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




---



##### 



Exhibit 32
 Certification pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  (1)
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 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.
  May 10, 2007
    
    /s/ Richard J. JarosinskiDate
    
    Richard J. Jarosinski, President and Chief Executive OfficerMay 10, 2007
    
    /s/ John N. PesarsickDate
    
    John N. Pesarsick, Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT32.3

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER OFUCDPFINANCE, INC.PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the quarterly report of UniversalCity Development Partners, Ltd. and UCDP Finance, Inc. (the"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period endingSeptember 26, 2004 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onthe date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert K.Gault, Jr. certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to myknowledge::

|  |          |                                                                                                                     |
|--|----------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  | 1)  | the Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and |

|  |          |                                                                                                                                                    |
|--|----------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  | 2)  | the information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company. |

|                         |  |        |  |                                                           |  |  |  |  |  |  |
|-------------------------|--|--------|--|-----------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|
| Dated: November 9, 2004 |  | By:    |  | /s/Robert K. Gault, Jr.                                   |
|                    |  |   |  | Robert K. Gault,Jr.President (Principal ExecutiveOfficer) |
|                         |

----
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 Annual Report of Tire International Environmental Solutions Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Antonio Sticca, CFO and Principal Accounting Officer, 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







Date:  April 2, 2007

By:  /s/ Antonio Sticca

Name:  Antonio Sticca

Title:    Chief Financial Officer (Principal Accounting Officer)
Exhibit 32.01    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 Annual Report of Appiphany Technologies Holdings Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ending April 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jesse Keller, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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/ Jesse Keller By: Jesse Keller Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer  Dated: August 15, 2011  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.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v. JOHN H. HARRIS, Basic Airman, U. S. Air Force, Appellant

6 USCMA 112, 19 CMR 238

*113No. 6362

Decided June 24, 1955

Col A. W. Tolen, USAF, and Maj Peter Portrum, USAF, for Appellant.

Lt Col Emanuel Lewis, USAF, and Maj Roger H. Miller, USAF, for Appellee.

Opinion of the Court

PER CuRiam:

The accused was found guilty by special court-martial of three offenses of absence without leave, in violation of Article 86, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 50 USC § 680. He was sentenced to bad-conduct discharge, partial forfeitures, and confinement for six months. Following approval by the convening authority, the officer exercising general court-martial jurisdiction suspended the punitive discharge and approved. A board of review in the office of The Judge Advocate General of the Air Force then affirmed. Although the board was composed of three members, only two participated in the decision. We granted the petition for review because other cases were pending which involved the same issue, namely, whether a board of review with two members sitting, possessed the power to act.

The principles set forth in United States v. Petroff-Tachomakoff, 5 USCMA 824, 19 CMR 120, dispose of the only issue in this case.

The decision of the board of review is affirmed.
Exhibit 33.2





MANAGEMENT’S ASSERTION OF COMPLIANCE





Management of the Agency and Trust division of Citibank, N.A. (or “Company”) is responsible for assessing compliance with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission.





Management has determined that the servicing criteria in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB are applicable in regard to the servicing platform for the period as follows:





Platform:  Publicly-issued (i.e., transaction-level reporting initially required under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended) automobile loan or lease-backed securities and student loan-backed securities issued on or after January 1, 2006, for which the Company provides trustee and paying agent services (the “Platform”).





Applicable Servicing Criteria:  All servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d), to the extent required by Item 1122(d) servicing criteria in regards to the activities performed by the Company with respect to the Platform as to any transaction, except for the following criteria: 1122(d)(1)(i)-1122(d)(1)(iv), 1122(d)(2)(i), 1122(d)(2)(iii), 1122(d)(2)(vi)-1122(d)(2)(vii), 1122(d)(3)(i) and 1122(d)(4)(i)-1122(d)(4)(xv), which management has determined are not applicable to the activities the Company performs with respect to the Platform (the “Applicable Servicing Criteria”).





Period:  Twelve months ended December 31, 2010 (the “Period”).





With respect to the Platform as of and for the Period, the Company’s management provides the following assertion of compliance with respect to the Applicable Servicing Criteria:




·
The Company’s management is responsible for assessing the Company’s compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.




·
The Company’s management has assessed compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.  In making this assessment, management used the criteria set forth by the Securities and Exchange Commission in paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB.




·
Based on such assessment, the Company has complied, in all material respects, with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.




KPMG LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report with respect to management’s assertion of compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of and for the Period.





CITIBANK, N.A.





By:  /s/ Karen Montbach




Its:  Managing Director





Dated: February 28, 2011
No. 76-53.

#### LaRue et ux. *v.*United States et al.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### In the Matter of the Application of De Witt C. Luce, *Admin*istrator.

Order appealed -from reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, to -be paid by the administrator out of the estate, and proceedings remitted to the Surrogates’ Court.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



### November 29, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice


### 131974 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan 

### PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices



### v SC: 131974 COA: 270998 Oakland CC: 2005-200328-FC GREGORY RONALD COLEMAN, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 28, 2006 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

t1120 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

November 29, 2006

Clerk
Docket No: FAA-2015-5810 Dir ID: 2014-NM-116-AD

Contacts. With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed? 

Organization Person Contacted Date Response 

National Business Aircraft Association Eli Cotti 6/3/14

Regional Airline Association 6/3/14

Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association Robert Hackman 6/3/14

Airlines for America Robert Ireland 6/3/14
No. 50550.

#### Protest 947300-G of E. P. Paul *&*Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

It was agreed between the parties that the sets are not entireties, and the claim is therefore limited to the tray. At the trial it was stipulated that the tray is a table or kitchen article or utensil composed wholly or in chief value of glass, pressed and unpolished, except that the bottom surfaces of the two legs thereof are ground and then polished for purposes other than ornamentation, to wit, to make the said bottom surface smooth and level. It was held that the articles, while made of pressed glass, not having been decorated or ornamented in any manner, having been ground for purposes other than ornamentation, and polished, are not properly classifiable under paragraph 218 (g). The court therefore found the glass articles in- question to be properly dutiable at 50 percent under paragraph 230 (d)'.
#### S. Stern, Stiner *&*Co., Inc. et al. *v.*United States

No. 6325.

Entry No. 768397, etc.

Invoices dated Stoke on Trent, England, March 7, 1941, etc.

Certified March 10, 1941, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., June 13, 1941, etc.

(Decided August 22, 1946)

*Brooks & Brooks*for the plaintiffs.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Keefe, 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, subject to the approval of the court, that the merchandise consisting of earthenware and chinaware and the issues in the appeals for reappraisement listed in the attached schedule are the same in all material respects as the merchandise and issues decided in *United States*v. *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.,*Suit No. 4513, C. A. D. 334, and that the record in said case may be incorporated herein.

> It is further stipulated and agreed that the appraised value of the merchandise consisting of earthenware and chinaware involved in each of the cases enumerated in the attached schedule, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases, is equal to the price, at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise is freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, and that the foreign value of such or similar merchandise is no higher.

> *288It is further stipulated and agreed that these cases may be submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the earthenware and chinaware here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases. Insofar as the appeals relate to. all other merchandise they are hereby dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
450044568410/07‘.,.ICOMMONWEALTHOFPENNSYLVAMAINVcENOSTO—521REV.12-88.puBJJcflONS.RIZATIONANDINVOICEPUBLICATIONSAUTHORIZATION(TobecompIeted6yency)TO:(NAMEANDADDRESSOFNEWSPAPER):FEDERALlDNO,5OC.SEC.NO.FROM:(NAMEANDADDRESSOFAGENCY)ENCYTELEPHONENO.ErieTimesNews25_09114YvetteH.House717—787—9495205W.12thStreetBureauofAirQual±tyErie,PA16534400MarketSt.,12thFloorHarrisburg.PA17105.Jy,-:HEREWITHISENCLOSEDCOPYFORPUBLICATIONOFADVERTISEMENTFORPROPOSALSTTYPEOFADEMPL.OYPURCHASECONTRACTSELLCLASSIFIEDLEGALNOTICEPUBUSHADVERTISEMfNT(NO.OFTIMES)MAXIMUMNO.OFLINESDAIflflORDERNO.couerDATESOFINSERTIONSIGMAEFORAGENOctober14,2009,WednesdayeditioYou,asvendor,areauthorizedtopublishthisadvesementinyournewspaper,subjecttothetermsofthisorder,asfollows:Advertisementtobepublishedinregularadvertisingcolumns,nopositionspecified;captionoftwolinesandsignaturetobeincapitalsandsubjectmatterandtitleofofficer.tobesetsolidintyperegularlyusedby_yournewspaperforpublic(legal)noceadvertising;chargetobemadeattheratechargedtoandpaidbycommercialadvertisersformattersimilarlysetandoccupyingsimilarspace;advertisementtoberunintheeditionsspecifiedabove.Vendoragreesthat,intheperformanceofanycontractawardedtoithereunder,saidvendorwillnotdiscriminateagainstanyemployeorotherpersonsonaccountofrace,color,sex,religiouscreed,ancestry,ageornationaloriginandthattheCommonwealth,uponreceiptofsatisfactoryevidenceofsuchdiscrimination,shallhavetherighttocancelsaidcontract.Returiithiscopyatonceifyouwillnotacceptthisadvertisementunderthetermssetforth.ProofofadvertisingintheformofatearsheetmuleincludedonParts1,2&3.Returnoriginalandtwocopies(signedbytheeditororpublisher)toAgencylistedabove.Part..ustbenotarized.Part4isyours.Commonwealthtobebilledonlyforactualnumber&ntedlinespublished.wACCOUNTFUNDDEPTAPPYEARLOG-COSTFUNCTIONOBJAMOUNTCODE.4PCc?I77O7t7p.C.32J.Z7/QkOQ3L/34LOINVOICE(Tobeàompletedbypublisher)::.DATEOFINSERTIONACTUALNO.OFPRINTEDUNESCOSTPERLINETOTALAMOUNTistAd/O-i/-7.L2ndAd73rdAd.::..T;!4•-:GRANDTOTALPASTETEARSHEETHEREe-.,SConoqa—ofPennsylvania.Countyof:Beforeme,thesubscriber,aNotaryPublicinand______________________________________the)uodho77thathe7unpersonallycame_______________________whobjig6-ageneralnewspaperpublishedat/‘thattheadvertisement,ofwhhtearseetisattached.hereto,waspublishedintheregularadvertisingcolumnsofsaidnewspaper,intheeditionsofsaidnewspaper,inallrespectsasorderedandinvoicedabove;andthattheCommonwealthisnotchargedthereforataratehigherthanischargedanyordinarycommercialadvertiserforasimilaramountofmatteroccupyingsimilarspaceandsetinasimilarmanner,insaidnewspaper.ibscribedbeforemethis2-.2__2O/2Y154629dayIQaNOTARIALspjTAMJ.BROvft,NOTARYPUBLiCERIE,COUNTY,PENNA..VENDOR