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

Exhibit 32.1

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

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code), the
undersigned officer of Gryphon Gold Corporation, (the Company) does hereby
certify with respect to the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the
period ended September 30, 2010 (the Report) that:

| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of
      Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
  and                                   
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |    |                                                                                                                                                                 
| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.



Date: February 11, 2010

/s/ John L.
KeyJohn L. Key Chief Executive Officer and Principal Executive
Officer



The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of
Title 18 of the United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report
or as a separate disclosure document.

---
Exhibit 32.2



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-QSB
filed by New Century Bancorp, Inc. (the Issuer) for the quarter ended September 30, 2003, 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.



NEW CENTURY BANCORP, INC.



|Date: November 13, 2003 |  | By: |  | /s/ Lisa F. Campbell                             
|----------------------- |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------------------
|                        |  |     |  | Lisa F. Campbell                                 
|                        |  |     |  | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
##### 



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
  (a)
    
    The report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and(b)
    
    The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 /s/ Nathaniel F. Bradley IV

Nathaniel F. Bradley IVChairman of the Board, President andChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)November 3, 2006/s/ Mark A. RedmanMark A. RedmanVice President  Finance andChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)November 3, 2006
Exhibit 32.1

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

The undersigned hereby certifies that (i) the Form 10-Q filed by New Century Bancorp, Inc. (the Issuer) for the quarter ended September 30, 2009, 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 16, 2009 |  | By: |  | /s/ William L. Hedgepeth II          
|                        |  |     |  | William L. Hedgepeth II              
|                        |  |     |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
No. 44124.

#### Protest 26794-K of M. Pressner & Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

It was stipulated that the squawker ballons in question are composed in part of bamboo and 'are similar to those the subject of Abstract 40493. The claim at 45 percent under paragraph 409 was therefore sustained.
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 G2 Ventures, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31,
2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2010 (the Report), I, Gust Kepler, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



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



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



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Gust Kepler        
|Gust Kepler            
|Chief Executive Officer
|May 11, 2010           

A signed original of this certification
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.
February 21, 1957

Reap. Dec. 8756.

#### *W.J. Byrnes & Co. of La., Inc., for: Torch Mfg. Co., Inc., et al.*v. *United States.*

Entered at Los Angeles, Calif. Reap. Dee. 8727. Motion by plaintiffs.
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 Quanta Capital Holdings Ltd. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the fiscal
quarter ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the "Report") and pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted in Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, I, Tobey J. Russ, Chief Executive Officer, certify that to
the best of 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.

A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906 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.

Date: May 4,
2005

/s/ Tobey J. RussTobey J. Russ
(Principal Executive Officer)

---
#### J. J. Murphy & Co. et al. *v.*United States

No. 7345.

Invoices dated Longton, England, April 1944, etc.

Certified April 1944, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., May 19, 1944, etc.

Entry No. 734567, etc.

(Decided July 22, 1947)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn (Hadley B. King*of counsel) for the plaintiffs.

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

Oliver, Presiding 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:

(Stipulation omitted.)

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 merchandise here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importers on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
#### Justine O. Fowler, Resp’t, *v.*The Third Avenue R. R. Co., App’lt.

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

*Filed February 10, 1890.)*

Venue—Change of.

Where it appears that plaintiff has a greater number o£ witnesses who will be convienced by retaining the venue in the county where laid and the case will be more quickly disposed of in such county, a motion by defendant to change for convenience of witnesses should be denied.

Appeal from order denying defendant’s motion to change the place of trial from Westchester county to the city and county of New York, on the ground of the convenience of witnesses.

Action for injuries to plaintiff alleged to have been caused by defendant’s negligence. The accident occurred while plaintiff was attempting to get on board of one of defendant's cars on the Tenth Avenue & One Hundred and Twenty-fifth Street Cable Bead.

*William H. Cohen,*for app’lt; *Frederic S. Barnum,*for resp’t

*286Barnard, P. J.

The plaintiff is a resident of Westchester county. In March, 1889, she signalled the gripman on one of the defendant’s cars to stop, so that she, herself, with her granddaughter and servant could get upon the car. The car stopped and the granddaughter and servant got on the ■ car safely, but while the plaintiff was in the act of doing so, the car suddenly started with a jerk and the plaintiff was thrown down and injured. These facts, as stated in the complaint in respect to the negligence of defendant, are denied in the answer and the accident is stated therein to have been occasioned by the plaintiff’s own negligence. The venue is laid in Westchester county and the defendant seeks to change the place of trial to the city and county of New York for the convenience of the witnesses.

The many affidavits for defendant state six necessary witnesses who reside in New York One of these is not very material, as he is stated to have helped plaintiff get up after her fall, and that she got on the car and refused to pay her fare. The plaintiff has a greater number of witnesses who will be convenienced by a trial in Westchester county. The plaintiff and her servant, who was at the accident, two physicians as to her injury, three acquaintances of long standing as to the effect of the injury and that the plaintiff was perfectly well before the accident, and the plaintiff’s husband.

It can be considered also that in Westchester county the calendar is called through with scarcely an exception at every term of the circuit court

The order should therefore be affirmed, with costs and disbursements.

Pratt, J., concurs.
No. 49748.

#### Protest 97967-K of Raphael Tuck & Sons, Ltd. (New York).

Opinion' by

Kincheloe, J.

In view of the collector’s letter and the appraiser’s amended return, which were received in evidence by consent, the protest was sustained as to certain of the items in question.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: EASYSAVER REWARDS LITIGATION, JOSUE ROMERO; DEANNA HUNT; KIMBERLY KENYON; GINA BAILEY; ALISSA HERBST; GRANT JENKINS; BRADLEY BERENTSON; JENNIFER LAWLER; DANIEL COX; JONATHAN WALTER; CHRISTOPHER DICKEY, Plaintiffs - Appellees,
v. BRIAN PERRYMAN, Objector - Appellant,
v. PROVIDE COMMERCE, INC.; REGENT GROUP, INC., a California corporation, DBA Encore Marketing International; ENCORE MARKETING INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Delaware corporation, No. 13-55373
D.C. No. 3:09-cv-02094-AJBWVG
ORDER AND MEMORANDUM * 

# FILED
MAR 19 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Anthony J. Battaglia, District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 19, 2015 ** Pasadena California Before: REINHARDT and GOULD, Circuit Judges and MOTZ, *** Senior District Judge. This case is resubmitted as of the date of this order. Objector-Appellant Brian Perryman app eals the district court’s approval of the class settlement agreement reached by Defendant-Appellee Provide Commerce, Inc., Defendant-Appellee Regent Group, Inc., d/b/a Encore Marketing International, and Plaintiffs-Appellees. Perryman contends that the district court abused its discretion in approving the settle ment agreement and the attorney’s fee award, because the $20 credit offered to th e class was a coupon subject to the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1712. Perry man further contends that the district court abused its discretion in approving the cy pres distribution.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, sitting by designation. 2This case was originally set for argument on February 2, 2015. That argument date was vacated, and submi ssion was deferred pending resolution of Frank v. Netflix , No. 12-15705+. On February 27, 2015, we decided Frank v. Netflix ( In re Online DVD-Rental Antitrust Litig. ), No. 12-15705, __F.3d __, 2015 WL 846008 (9th Cir. Feb. 27, 2015). Havi ng reviewed the parties’ submissions, we vacate the district court’s judgment and remand for further proceedings consistent with Frank . Because class settlement is a package deal that must “stand or fall in its entirety,” we need not now a ddress whether the district court abused its discretion in approving the cy pres distribution. See Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp. , 150 F.3d 1011, 1026 (9th Cir. 1998). Pursuant to General Order 4.5(e), each party shall bear its own costs on appeal. VACATED AND REMANDED.

3
EXHIBIT
      32.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
PUBLIC ACCOUNTING REFORM AND INVESTOR PROTECTION ACT OF 2002








In connection with the Quarterly Report
on Form 10-Q of Aeolus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period
ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or
about the date hereof (the “Report”), John L. McManus, President and Chief
Executive Officer, and Michael P. McManus, Chief Financial Officer, hereby
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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, as amended;
  and





(2)
            The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of the period
      covered by the Report and results of operations of the Company for the
      period covered by the Report.





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) or its staff upon request.





This
certification accompanies the Report to which it relates, is not deemed filed
with the SEC and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the
Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (whether made before or
after the date of the Report), irrespective of any general incorporation
language contained in such filing.








/s/John L.
McManus


John L. McManus


Chief Executive Officer and
President


(Principal Executive
Officer)


August 4, 2008








/s/ Michael P.
McManus


Michael
P. McManus


Chief
Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary


August 4,
2008
#### James Mooney, Resp’t, v. The N. Y. Elevated R. R. Co. *et al.,*App’lts.

Appeal from an order of Hon. R. L. Larremdre, Oh. J., declaring certain requests to find on the part of the defendants to he no part of the judgment roll, and directing the clerk to remove the same from the judgment roll.

Her Curiam.

The chief judge, before whom this case was tried, and to whom the requests to find should, therefore, have been properly submitted, having, upon all the papers presented upon this appeal, determined that the defendant’s requests objected to were not properly presented to him, and all the facts being within iiis knowledge at the time of such determination, we see no good reason for disturbing the order made by him.

The order appealed from should, therefore, he affirmed, with costs.
#### The Mechanics & Traders’ Bank, App’lt, *v.*James Loucheim, Resp't.

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

*Filed January 24, 1890.)*

Appeal from order denying motion to continue injuction.

*A. J.*Dittenhoefer, for app’lt; *F.*Bien, for resp’t.

Per Curiam.

The attachment referred to in the complaint in this action having been vacated by a decision handed down herewith, the right to an injunction necessarily falls, and the order denying the motion to continue the injunction should be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Yan Brunt, P. J., Brady and Daniels, JJ., concur..
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-7881
THOMAS ELMORE BARKSDALE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus SEWALL B. SMITH, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA97-1119-PJM) Submitted: April 29, 1998 Decided: May 15, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas Elmore Barksdale, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, David Jonathan Taube, Assistant Attorney General, Ann N orman Bosse, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate ofappealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Barksdale v. Smith , No. CA-97-1119-PJM (D. Md. Nov. 21, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Order filed November 20 , 2014.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 14

- 00561

- CV

____________ IN THE INTEREST OF V.D.A., a Child

On Appeal from the 315th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2013

- 04440J



### ORDER
This is an accelerated appeal from a judgment signed June 25, 2014, in a suit in which the termination of the parent

- child relationship is at issue

. Appeals in parental termination cases are to be brought to final disposition within 180 days of
the date the notice of appeal is filed. See Tex. R. Jud. Admin. 6.2(a). Appellant has established indigence or is presumed to be indigent. See Tex. R. App. P. 20.1(a). On July 14, 2014, three volumes of the reporter’s record from
the trial were filed. Volum e 3 contains the exhibits admitted at trial. The court reporter included a notation that Petitioner’s Exhibits No. 1

- 4 were admitted during a hearing o n a previous motion for continuance. On September 12, 2014, appellant,W.J., the father, filed his brief. In his brief, W.J. complains that requested portions

of the record were not filed. Because the record appears to be incomplete, we issue the following order:

We order Cara Skinner , the official court reporter, to file the supplemental reporter’s record in this appeal on or before December 5, 2014. The supplemental reporter’s record shall contain the following:

1. The record from the hearing on the pre

- trial motion for co ntinuance during which Petitioner’s Exhibits 1

- 4 were admitted; 2. Petitioner’s Exhibits 1

- 4; 3. The record from the pre

- trial hearing on W.J.’s special exceptions; 4

. The record from the Permanency Hearing held March 3, 2014; 5 . The record from the Perma nency Hearing held June 9, 2014; 6 . A record of the hearing, if any, on W.J.’s motion for new trial. If Cara Skinner does not timely file the supplemental r ecord as ordered, the court may issue an order requiring her to appear at a hearing to show cause wh y the supplemental record has not been timely filed and why she should not be held in contempt of court for failing to file the record as ordered

. If any requested record was not reported, the court reporter shall file a
certified statement that no record was taken of the requested proceeding and file the statement with this court by the due date for the supplemental record.

PER CURIAM
DISMISSED and Opinion Filed August 7, 2024 

# S

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-24-00899-CV IN RE BYRON KEIT H MCHANNY, Relator Original Proceeding from the 303rd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF-16-15496 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Nowell, and Miskel Opinion by Justice Miskel Before the Court is relator’s July 31 , 2024 petition for writ of mandamus challenging the trial court’s temporary or ders. Based on our review of the petition and record, however, the trial court has since issued a final order resolving all claims at issue. “It is well-settled that a temporar y order is superseded by entry of a final order, rendering moot any compla int about the temporary order.” Interest of B.W.S. , No. 05-20-00343-CV, 2022 WL 2712494, at *4 (Tex. App.—Dallas July 13, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op. nunc pro tunc). We la ck jurisdiction over a moot proceeding. See Elec. Reliability Council of Tex., Inc. v. Panda Power Generation Infrastructure–2– Fund, LLC , 619 S.W.3d 628, 634–35 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding) (discussing mootness doctrine). Accordingly, we dismiss relator’s petiti on for writ of mandamus for lack of jurisdiction. See id. Additionally, based on our revi ew, relator’s petition and its attached appendix contain unredacted se nsitive data—such as a minor’s birthdate— in violation of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 9.9. Accordingly, we strike relator’s petition and its attached appendix.

240899F.P05 /Emily Miskel / EMILY MISKEL JUSTICE–3– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
CAMILLE COOPER, ROBERT NEVAREZ, THE ORSALO GROUP, LLC, LARRY COOK, and 5TH AVENUE ACQUISITIONS & VENTURE CAPITALISTS, LLC, Appellants

No. 05-22-01295-CV V. TCH ALTERA AHCC, LLC, Appellee On Appeal from the 471st Judicial District Court, Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 471-06464- 2018. Opinion delivered by Justice Garcia. Justices Reichek and Goldstein participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED

. It is ORDERED that appellee TCH Altera AH CC, LLC recover its costs of this appeal from appellants Camille Coope r, Robert Nevarez, The Orsalo Group, LLC, Larry Cook, and 5th Avenue Acquisitions & Ve nture Capitalists, LLC.
Judgment entered this 7th day of August 2024.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-PETITIONER, v. ANGELO RALPH CONTURSI, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

April 27, 1964. Granted.

*Mr. Brendan T. Byrne*and *Mr. Peter Murray*for the petitioner.

*Messrs. Accardi & Martino*for the respondent.

On petition for certification to Superior Court, Appellate Division.