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 the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of The First Marblehead Corporation (the "Company") for the period ended December 31, 2007 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jack L. Kopnisky, Chief Executive Officer, President and Chief Operating Officer, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|Dated: February 11, 2008 | /s/JACK L. KOPNISKYJack L. Kopnisky Chief Executive Officer, President and Chief Operating
Officer
|------------------------ | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to The First Marblehead Corporation and will be retained by The First Marblehead Corporation
and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.

---



QuickLinks
No. 55349.

#### Westco Liquor Products Co. v. United States,

protest 118489-K (Los Angeles).

Opinion-by

Johnson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the .protest....
No. 46242.

Suit 4333.

#### United *States*v. *American Express Co.*

C. D. 378 reversed. C. A. D. 175.
Exhibit 32.1

Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The undersigned hereby certifies that,
to his or her knowledge, (i) the Form 10-Q filed by New Century Bancorp, Inc. (the Issuer) for the quarter ended September 30, 2007, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii) the information contained in that report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer on the dates and for the periods presented therein.



|                        |  |     |  |                                      
|----------------------- |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: November 14, 2007 |  | By: |  | /s/ William L. Hedgepeth II          
|                        |  |     |  | William L. Hedgepeth II              
|                        |  |     |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
---

Exhibit 32





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 USC SECTION 1350







CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE


SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




CERTIFICATION OF CUSTODIAN





In connection with the Annual Report of Turner Valley Oil & Gas, Inc.., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), on 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Christopher
Paton-Gay, Sole Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), 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: November 30, 2008


Christopher Paton-GayChristopher Paton-Gaydirector / CEO
No. 49278.

#### Protest 79110-K of F. W. Woolworth Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The court found that the uncontradicted record fully supported the claim made and that the tape measures in question are similar in all material respects to those involved in Abstract 43372, which record was incorporated herein. The claim at 40 percent under paragraph 339 was therefore sustained.
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 0**  **9**
**- 2**  **1 59** 

AELISHA N. MARSH ,
Plaintiff

– Appell ant ,

v.
CBS MEDIA CORPORATION; BOB SCHOENING, Vice President, CBS Charlotte; VEDRA GRANT, National Sales Executive; UNITED BEHA VIORAL HEALTH, A CBS company; UNIVERSITY PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATES; JANE MARSH MONTECIGGIO, CBS Corporate; JANE MARSH ROCKEFELLER; HEARST PUBLICATIONS, William Randolph Hearst Senior; BARBARA MCINTYRE, Human Resources

- CBS Charlotte; TERRI AVERY, Operations Manager; SPRINT NEXTEL CORPORATION; REACH MEDIA INCORPORATED; ARTIE GOINES; NBC CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS; STEVE HARVEY; STEVE HARVEY RADIO NETWORK INCORPORATED; FIRST UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendants

– Appellees,

and

INNER CITY BROADCASTING CO MPANY; NORTH CAROLINA POLICE DEPARTMENT; DONALD PARKER,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte

. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., Chief District Judge. ( 3 :0 9

- cv
- 00 289

- R JC )

Submitt ed : September 30 , 2010 Decided: October 7, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, AGEE , and KEENAN, Circuit Judge s
.2 Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Aelisha N. Marsh , Appellant Pro Se. James Michael Hone y cutt, FISHER & PHILLIPS, LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina, George K. Evans, Jr. , WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC, Winst o n
Salem, North Carolina, Clinton Russell Pinyan, BROOKS, PIERCE MCLENDON, HUMPHREY & LEONARD, Greensbor o , North Carolina, Joseph S. Turner, SEYFARTH & SHAW, Chicago, Illinois, Nor ris Arden Adams, II, ESSEX & RICHARDS, PA, Charlotte, North Carolina, Benjamin R. Holland, MCGUIR E WOODS, LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina, Nancy E. Walker, TIN, FULTON, WALKER & OWEN, PLLC, Charlotte , North Carolina, Erna A.P. Womble, WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDG E & RICE, PLLC, Winston

- Salem, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM:
Aelisha N. Marsh appeals the district court’s order
dismissing her complaint filed under Title VII of the Civi l
Rights Act of 1964, as amended, alleging defamation and wrongful

termination. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the

district court. Marsh v. C B S Media Corp. , No. 3:0 9

- cv
- 00 289

- R J C

( W .D. N.C. Sept. 24, 2009 )

. We further deny Marsh’s “Motion for
Monetary Relief Beyond the Scope of Unemployment.” We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argu ment would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRME D
Before the Third Division,

May 20, 1958

No. 61967.

#### Marbro Lamp Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 316723-K (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with oral stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of figures similar in all material respects to those 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.
Before the First Division,

October 16, 1944

No. 49757.

#### Petitions 6274-R, etc., of New York Merchandise Co., Inc. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

These cases were the subject of appeals to reappraisement (Reap. Dec. 5551 and 5789), the court sustaining in both cases the higher value found by the appraiser, and it is the additional duties accruing from such findings that are sought herein on motion of petitioner. From the testimony presented at the trial it was found, in view of *United States*v. *American Metal Co., Ltd.*(12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 440, T. D. 40612) and *United States*v. *Macy & Co.*(13 id. 245, T. D. 41199), that the petitioner has met its statutory burden. The case cited *(Ringling Bros., Barnum & Bailey Combined Shows, Inc.*v. *United States,*31 C. C. P. A. 191, C. A. D. 272) by the respondent was found to present an entirely different factual basis from that adduced herein and therefore is not applicable to the cases involved here. The petitions were therefore granted.
#### Phœbe Fellows, *Appellant, v.*Richard C. Fellows, *Respondent.*

— Judgment affirmed. Opinion by Bradt, J.
#### In the matter of the application of John McCall *et al.,*Resp’ts, *v.*The Village of Saratoga Springs, App’lt.

*(Supreme Court, General Term, Third Department,*

*Filed February 24, 1890.)*

Villages—Change op grade op streets—Laws 1883, chap. 113; Laws 1884, chap. 281.

To render a village liable for damages caused by the change of grade of a street, under chap. 113, Laws of 1883, as amended in 1884, it is not necessary that the grade should have been previously established by order or resolution.

Appeal from an order of the special term, appointing commissioners to ascertain and appraise the damages if any sustained by the petitioners by changing the grade of Warren street and York avenue in the village of Saratoga Springs.

*J. L. Henning,*for app’lt; *Wm. If. McCall,*for resp’ts.

Landon, J.

Warren street and York avenue were for several years prior to 1887 public highways, and cared for as such by the village authorities. Their grade was the natural grade of the surface of the earth, except as slight inequalities in the natural surface had been removed by throwing the earth from the higher to the lower places. The petitioners had built their houses on the streets while the natural grade continued. In 1887 the village authorities established a different grade from the natural one, and changed the surface of the street accordingly, making excavations, in so doing, as the petitioners allege, to their injury.

Chapter 113, Laws of 1883, as amended by chapter 281, Laws 1881, authorizes the appointment of the commissioners “ whenever the grade of any street * * * in any incorporated village shall be changed or altered” to the injury of the owners, of houses already existing on adjoining lots. The village contends that this means a grade previously ordered and made, and *700not the natural grade which has been acquiesced in without express order or adoption; and that the action of the authorities in 1887 was the first establishment of the grade, and not a change or alteration of a previous grade. Every street has a grade whether established by law or accepted from nature. The act does not distinguish between the two grades. The mischief to be remedied may be as great in one case as in the other. Prior to the statutes in question, it was held that, in the absence of a statute, the lot owner could not recover from -the municipality for consequential damages to an adjoining lot caused by an authorized grading or change of grade in a street. *Radcliff's Ex'rs*v. *Mayor,*4 N. Y., 196; *Mills*v. Brooklyn, 32 id., 489. These statutes are remedial, and should be construed to promote the remedy for such consequential damages in favor of the parties mentioned in the statute. The statute has received this contraction in the second department. *Matter of*Wiley, 52 Hun, 382; 24 N. Y. State Rep., 273.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and printing disbursements.

Learned, P. J., and Mayham, J., concur.
#### THOMAS P. NILES and JOHN M. NILES, Executors etc., of SMITH SHAW, Deceased, Appellants, *v.*ALEXANDER CHACE, Respondent.

*Apportionment of rent*— right *of an executor to recover a portion aicrued, but not due, at the time of the testator’» death*— by *and against whom the action must be brought*— 1875, *chap.*543.

Appeal from a judgment in favor of the defendant, entered upon a nonsuit directed at the circuit."

Smith Shaw, the testator, died- November 27, 1878. The plaintiffs are his executors. They bring this action to recover for the use and occupation of a farm of the deceased, N the defendant, from April 1, 1878, to the day of the death of the testator. It was proved on the trial that the defendant had occupied the farm for a number of years prior to the death of the testator, and continued to occupy it after the death of the testato', and down to the time of trial. The value of the use from Apri’ first to November twenty-seventh was also proved. No further p»of was given, and the plaintiffs were thereupon, on defendant’s notion, nonsuited. It appeared by the complaint and answer, that th< testator devised the farm to the defendant.

The court at General Term said: “We tlink-that the learned justice was right in holding that, if there wa/ any tenancy, it must be presumed to be a tenancy by the year, tnder the facts shown. *(<Jackson ex dem.*v. Bryan, 1 Johns., 322.)

“ The right to the proportionate part, givai by chapter 542, Laws of 1875, is qualified by the second section if the act. This gives the right of action to the persons who wouldhave been entitled if the act had not been passed, and limits the renedy to a recovery from such persons. The action, therefore, of he executors, in such a *201case, is against the heir or devisee. In the present instance the alleged tenant is the devisee. Very possibly, in such a case, upon a complaint properly framed, an action might be maintained by the executor against the heir or devisee who had been tenant of the deceased. But such was not the complaint here; nor was there any motion to amend.”

*McClellan c&*Brown, for the appellants.

*MewTcvrk <&■*Chace, for the respondent.

Opinion by the court.

Present — Learned, P. J., Boardman and Bockes, JJ.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
(Reap. Dec. 8872)

Entry No. 95, etc.

#### Joseph Tanous *v.*United States

(Decided June 25, 1957)

*Stein & Shostak (Marjorie M. Shostak*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General (Richard H. Welsh, trial attorney)., for the defendant.

Johnson, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement, listed in schedule “A,” attached hereto and made a part hereof, consolidated at the trial,, involve chewing gum imported from Mexico in February, March, and April 1945. The merchandise involved in the first five appeals was invoiced at 2.75 Mexican pesos per carton of 50 pieces, entered at 3 Mexican pesos per carton of 50 pieces, and appraised at 6.50 Mexican pesos per 100 pieces. In the last three appeals, the merchandise was invoiced at 2.75 Mexican pesos per carton of 50 pieces, entered at 3.25 Mexican pesos per carton of 50 pieces, and appraised at 7.50 Mexican pesos per 100 pieces.

At the trial, the following statements were made by counsel for the respective parties:

> Miss Shostak: In these cases, Your Honor, the merchandise consists of chewing gum imported from Mexico, and I offer to stipulate that the merchandise involved in these cases consists of chewing gum composed in chief value of chicle, refined or advanced in value by drying, straining, or other process or treatment beyond that essential to proper packing.

> Mr. Welsh: The Government so concedes, upon the advice of the Appraiser, Mr. Omes.

> Miss Shostak: I respectfully request that this stipulation be entered in the record for the information of the Collector when the entries come to liquidation, since it is our contention, and I believe it is not disputed by the Government, that the merchandise is a manufactured article not enumerated in the Tariff Act, composed of two or more materials, and that it is subject to the assessment of duty by virtue of the mixed materials clause of paragraph 1559, of the Tariff Act of 1930, as it was in effect at the time of these importations, at a specific rate of duty under paragraph 25, of the Tariff Act of 1930.

> Mr. Welsh: Upon the advice of the appraiser, Mr. Ornes, and the Deputy Collector in Charge of the Liquidating Division, Mr. Hoffman, the Government so stipulates.

> Miss Shostak: Your Honor, in view of the fact that the merchandise in these cases is subject to duty under rulings of the court which became effective after these importations were entered at a specific rate rather than an ad valorem rate *543as originally advisorily returned by the examiner at or about the time of the entries, the value of the merchandise for duty purposes becomes immaterial, and for that reason, and upon this statement, and the stipulation of counsel, which we request be made a matter of record, plaintiff abandons its appeals for reap-praisement in these eight cases.

The only question before the court in this proceeding is the value of the merchandise. Since no evidence has been presented on this issue and since the appeals for reappraisement have been abandoned, the appeals are dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
**Exhibit 8.1**

 

**LIST OF SIGNIFICANT SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT**

 

·                  AllianceSPEC Pte. Ltd. (incorporated in Singapore)

 

·                  Beijing Horizon Information & Technology Co., Ltd. (incorporated in the People’s Republic of China)

 

·                  DMK International, Inc. (incorporated in Delaware)

 

·                  hiSoft Japan Co., Ltd. (incorporated in Japan)

 

·                  HiSoft Envisage, Inc. (incorporated in Delaware)

 

·                  HiSoft Services (Beijing) Ltd. (incorporated in the People’s Republic of China)

 

·                  HiSoft Singapore Pte. Ltd. (incorporated in Singapore)

 

·                  HiSoft Systems Hong Kong Ltd. (incorporated in Hong Kong)

 

·                  HiSoft Systems (Shenzhen) Ltd. (incorporated in the People’s Republic of China)

 

·                  HiSoft Technology (Chengdu) Co., Ltd. (incorporated in the People’s Republic of China)

 

·                  HiSoft Technology (Dalian) Co., Ltd. (incorporated in the People’s Republic of China)

 

·                  HiSoft Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. (incorporated in the People’s Republic of China)

 

·                  Insurance Systems Laboratory Co., Ltd. (incorporated in Japan)

 

·                  Wuxi HiSoft Services Ltd. (incorporated in the People’s Republic of China)

 

·                  Wuxi HiSoft Technology Training Co., Ltd. (incorporated in the People’s Republic of China)

 

·                  HiSoft Jinxin Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd. (incorporated in the People’s Republic of China)

 

·                  Shanghai HURO Digital Technology Co., Ltd. (incorporated in the People’s Republic of China)

 

·                  Echo Lane, Inc. (incorporated in California)

 

·                  NouvEON Technology Partners, Inc. (incorporated in North Carolina)

 

·                  Logoscript International S.L. (incorporated in Spain)

 

·                  Logoscript S.L.U. (incorporated in Spain)

 

·                  Shenzhen Longhaul Information Technology Ltd. (incorporated in the People’s Republic of China)

 

----
##### 



MSW ENERGY HOLDINGS II LLC AND SUBSIDIARIES
COMPUTATION OF RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
(Unaudited, in thousands of dollars)
 For the Six
    
    
    For the Period From
    
    
    
    For the Period FromMonths Ended
    
    
    June 25 through
    
    
    
    January 1 throughJune 30, 2006
    
    
    June 30, 2005
    
    
    
    June 24, 2005EARNINGS:Pre-tax income (loss) from
continuing operations before
minority interests
    
    $
    31,932
    
    
    $
    2,704
    
    
    
    $
    (1,691
    )Add:Fixed charges
    
    
    28,587
    
    
    
    1,034
    
    
    
    
    30,358Earnings, as adjusted
    
    $
    60,519
    
    
    $
    3,738
    
    
    
    $
    28,667FIXED CHARGES:Interest expense
    
    $
    28,587
    
    
    $
    1,034
    
    
    
    $
    30,358Fixed charges
    
    $
    28,587
    
    
    $
    1,034
    
    
    
    $
    30,358RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES:
    
    
    2.12
    x
    
    
    3.62
    x
    
    
    
    0.94
    x
 44
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v. MELVIN C. GRENIER, Airman Second Class, U. S. Air Force, Appellant

6 USCMA 113, 19 CMR 239

No. 6432

Decided June 24, 1955

Col A. W. Tolen, USAF, and Capt Donald C. Helling, USAF, for Appellant.

Lt Col Emanuel Lewis, USAF, for Appellee.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM:

The accused was convicted by general court-martial of numerous offenses, in violation of the Uniform Code of Mili*114tary Justice, 50 USC §§ 551, et seq., which do not concern us here. He was sentenced to dishonorable discharge, partial forfeitures, and confinement at hard labor for three years. The convening authority suspended the punitive discharge, reduced the confinement to two years, and approved. A board of review in the office of The Judge Advocate General of the Air Force modified the findings and affirmed. Although the board was composed of three members, only two participated in the decision. We granted the petition for review only 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.
----

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC  ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

 We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements of Destiny Media  Technologies Inc, (Form S-8 No. 333-133552) pertaining to the 2006 Amended and Restated Stock  Option Plan, (Form S-8 No. 333.114904) and pertaining to the Amended 1999 Stock Option Plan of our  report dated November 26, 2008 with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Destiny Media  Technologies Inc. for the years ended August 31, 2008 and 2007, included in its Annual Report (Form  10-K/A) for the year ended August 31, 2009.

| Vancouver, Canada    March 10, 2010 | Chartered Accountants |
|-------------------------------------|-----------------------|

----
p.1 

OAR Box 1828 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

220) ll-K- (I) -33 

Docket Number: 

A-83-27 

Printed 11/12/2008 11:12:56 AM Sheet 220 of 325 
P.2 

/A\ R 

S 0 0 

II-K-(I)-33 

INDUSTRIAL BOILER NSPS IMPACT ANALYSIS FIRST ROUND 

ALTERNATIVE REGULATORY OPTIONS. 

EEA, Inc. 

September 10, 1979. 

THIS INFORMATION CAN BE FOUND IN DOCKET A-79-02, ITEM 

II-K-(I)-33
No. 76-1436.

#### Sprague & Rhodes Commodity Corp. et al. *v.*The Irish Spruce et al.

C. A. 2d Cir. ' Certiorari denied.
#### Augusta G. Genet, Resp’t, *v.*The Pres’t, etc., D. & H. C. Co., App’lt.

*Geo. 0. Genet,*for resp’t; *Eranlc E. Smith,*for app’lt.

Order affirmed, with costs.

All concur, except Beckham, J., not sitting.

Affirming 29 N. Y. State Rep., 954.
IIB 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8841 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 5, 2024 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 114 Center Street East in Roseau, Minnesota, 

as the ‘‘Floyd B. Olson Post Office’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

HR 8841 RFS

1 SECTION 1. FLOYD B. OLSON POST OFFICE. 

2 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

3 Postal Service located at 114 Center Street East in 

4 Roseau, Minnesota, shall be known and designated as the 

5 ‘‘Floyd B. Olson Post Office’’. 

6 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg7 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

8 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

9 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Floyd B. Olson Post 

10 Office’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives December 4, 

2024. 

Attest: KEVIN F. MCCUMBER, 

Clerk. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB