alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32





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 SinoCoking Coal and Coke Chemical Industries, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned, Jianhua Lv and Zan Wu, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of their 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 and results of operations of the Company.




Dated March 31, 2010.




/s/Jianhua Lv


Jianhua Lv


Chief Executive Officer and President


(Principal Executive Officer)








/s/Zan Wu


Zan Wu


Chief Financial Officer


(Principal Accounting and Financial Officer)




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.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
WESTERN DISTRICT

JOBE DANGANAN, ON BEHALF OF
HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED

v.

GUARDIAN PROTECTION SERVICES

PETITION OF: UNITED STATES COURT
OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 44 WM 2017

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 8th day of August , 2017, the Petition for Ce rtification of Question

of State Law is GRANTED

. This Court shall consider the following issues:

1. Whether a non

- Pennsylvania resident may bring suit under the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL), [73 P

. S. §§201

- 1 to 201

- 9.3], against a business headquartered in and operating from Pennsylvania, based on transactions which occurred outside of Pennsylvania?

2. If the UTPCPL does not allow a non

- Pennsylvania resident to invoke its protections, whether the parties can, through a choice

- of

law provision, expand its protections to parties to the contract who

are non

- Pennsylvania resident consumers?

T he Prothonotary is DIRECTED to establish a briefing schedule and list this case

for oral argument.
(Reap. Dec. 8498)

#### J. D. Smith Inter-Ocean, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 14925-1/2, etc.

(Decided December 2, 1955)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

*Warren E. Burger,*Assistant Attorney General *(Daniel I. Auster,*trial attorney), for the defendant.

Rao, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule “A,” annexed hereto and made a part hereof, which were consolidated for the purposes of trial, relate to several importations of woven flax fabrics which were entered at the invoice unit values, less a discount of 3% per centum, and were appraised at the invoice unit values, net, plus cost of cases and packing, except as to reappraisements 250597-A and 250604-A where said 3K per centum was allowed, but the appraiser either advanced or reduced the *per se*unit prices of some of the items.

It appears that the appraiser’s failure to allow the 3% per centum discount, which was deducted at the time of entry, was inadvertent.

The parties have stipulated that as to all cases, save those excepted, the entered values represent the correct export values and that there is no foreign value for this merchandise. It was further stipulated that as to said reappraisements 250597-A and 250604-A, the appraised values represent the export values and that there are no foreign values.

Upon the agreed facts, I find export value as defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 to be the proper basis of value for the merchandise here involved; that such values are, in all instances, except reappraisements 250597-A and 250604-A,, the entered values; and that in the excepted cases such values are those found by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
No. 38950.

#### Protests 354100-G, etc., of Weiss & Biheller et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Rice*v. *United States*(T. D. 49373) the atomizers in question were held dutiable at 40 percent under paragraph 339 as claimed.
No. 46237.

#### Protests 35256-K, etc., of Heiss Brush & Co., Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following *Bullocks*v. *United States*(6 Cust. Ct. 110, C. D. 441) the merchandise in question was held not subject to countervailing duty.
# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 8- 14 40

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Dale E. Bry an t

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.
Nur se Denh am , Cor rect Care So lu ti on s Pi ll Nurs e
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l

Defe nd an t - Ap pe ll ee

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s - Ho t Sp rin gs

__ __ __ __ __ __ Su bm it te d: Nov em

be r 27 , 20 18 Fi le d: Decem

be r 11 , 20 18 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re KELLY, GRASZ, and STRAS, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM.Ark an sa s in m at e Dale Bryant ap pe al s th e di st ric t co u rt’s ad ve rs e gr an t of 1

su m m ary jud gm en t i n h i s 4 2 U .S.C. § 19 83 act io n ag ai ns t pr is on nu rs e Jo na th an Den ha m , in whi c h he al le ge d Den ha m was de li be rat el y in di ffer en t to hi s se rio us
m ed ic al ne ed s by de la y i n g a dm in is tra ti on of in jecta bl e an ti -n au se a an d pa in

m ed ic at io n. Afte r care fu l d e no vo rev ie w, co ns tru in g th e reco rd in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to Bryant an d dr awin g al l reas on ab le in fere nc es th eref ro m in hi s fav or , se e Cu ll or v. Bal dw in , 83 0 F.3 d 83 0, 83 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ) (s ta nd ard of rev ie w), we ag ree wit h th e di st ric t co ur t th at Bryant di d no t sh ow Den ha m was de li be rat el y in di ffer en t to hi s se rio us m ed ic al ne ed s, se e Pop oa li i v. Co rr

. Me d

. Se rv s. , 51 2 F.3 d 48 8, 49 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (d el ib erat e in di ffer en ce is ak in to cri m in al reck le ss ne ss an d de m an ds

m or e th an ev en gro ss ne gl ig en ce).

Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm th e jud gm en t of th e di st ric t co ur t. Se e 8t h Ci r. R. 47 B.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

The Hon or ab le Su sa n O. Hick ey , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e W es te rn 1 Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s, ad op ti ng th e rep or t an d reco m m en da tio n of th e Hon or ab le Barr y A. Bry an t, Un it edSta te s M ag is tra te Ju dg e fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s.
-2

-
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8434 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

107 North Hoyne Avenue in Fritch, Texas, as the ‘‘Chief Zeb Smith 

Post Office’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 16, 2024 

Mr. JACKSON of Texas (for himself, Mr. CRENSHAW, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. 

ELLZEY, Mr. CLOUD, Mr. PFLUGER, Mr. BABIN, Mr. NEHLS, Mr. 

ALLRED, and Mr. WILLIAMS of Texas) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 107 North Hoyne Avenue in Fritch, Texas, 

as the ‘‘Chief Zeb Smith Post Office’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CHIEF ZEB SMITH POST OFFICE. 

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

5 Postal Service located at 107 North Hoyne Avenue in 

6 Fritch, Texas, shall be known and designated as the 

7 ‘‘Chief Zeb Smith Post Office’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8434 IH

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

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

4 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Chief Zeb Smith Post 

5 Office’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8487 

To amend title II of the Social Security Act to exempt widows and widowers 

of police officers, firefighters, and correctional officers from the government pension offset. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 21, 2024 

Mr. VAN DREW (for himself and Mr. BACON) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend title II of the Social Security Act to exempt 

widows and widowers of police officers, firefighters, and 

correctional officers from the government pension offset. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Honoring Emergency 

5 Response Officers’ Sacrifice Act’’ or the ‘‘HEROS Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. GOVERNMENT PENSION OFFSET EXEMPTION. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 202(k)(5) of the Social 

8 Security Act (42 U.S.C. 402(k)(5)) is amended by adding 

9 at the end the following: 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8487 IH

1 ‘‘(D) Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to 

2 a monthly insurance benefit of an individual 

3 under subsection (e), (f), or (g) if the individual 

4 is entitled to such benefit on the basis of the 

5 wages and self-employment income of an indi6 vidual who died in the line of duty while serving 

7 as any of the following: 

8 ‘‘(i) A Federal law enforcement officer 

9 (as defined in section 2 of the Law En10 forcement Congressional Badge of Bravery 

11 Act of 2008 (34 U.S.C. 50301(5)). 

12 ‘‘(ii) A State or local law enforcement 

13 officer (as defined in section 2(11) of such 

14 Act (34 U.S.C. 50301(11)). 

15 ‘‘(iii) An employee in fire protection 

16 activities (as defined in section 3(y) of the 

17 Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 

18 U.S.C. 203(y)). 

19 ‘‘(iv) Firefighting personnel (as de20 fined in section 33(a)(5) of the Federal 

21 Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 

22 (15 U.S.C. 2229(a)(5)). 

23 ‘‘(v) A correctional officer (as defined 

24 in section 4051(a)(1) of title 18, United 

25 States Code). 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 8487 IH

1 ‘‘(vi) A State correctional officer (as 

2 defined in section 1121(b)(2) of title 18, 

3 United States Code).’’. 

4 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

5 this Act shall apply in relation to monthly insurance bene6 fits payable for months beginning on or after the date of 

7 enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold the following meeting during the week of April 2, 2007: 

An Open Meeting will be held on Wednesday, April 4, 2007 at 10 a.m. in the Auditorium, Room L-002. 

The subject matter of the Open Meeting scheduled for Wednesday, April 4, 2007 will be: 

The Commission will consider its staff's approach to (1) the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board's (“PCAOB”) Proposed Auditing Standard—An Audit of Internal Control Over Financial Reporting That Is Integrated with An Audit of Financial Statements; and (2) the PCAOB's Proposed Auditing Standard—Considering and Using the Work of Others in an Audit. 

Commissioner Casey, as duty officer, determined that no earlier notice thereof was possible. 

At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items. 

For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact: 

The Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400. 

Dated: March 29, 2007. 

Florence E. Harmon, 

Deputy Secretary. 

 [FR Doc. E7-6124 Filed 4-2-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P
**Docket No. FAA -**  **2015 -**  **8434 Dir. ID 2015**  **- NM**  **- 082**  **- AD**
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v RAYMOND K. WINTERS, Private First Class, U. S. Marine Corps, Appellant

13 USCMA 454, 32 CMR 454

*455No. 16,533

February 8, 1963

*Lieutenant Colonel Charles B. Sevier,*USMC, was on the brief for Appellant, Accused.

*Commander John D. Moroney,*USN, was on the brief for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM:

At his trial by special court-martial, the accused pleaded guilty to a specification alleging an unauthorized absence for twenty minutes, and not guilty to five specifications of larceny. After the accused’s plea, the Government admitted in'open court that it had no “competent evidence” as to one of the specifications of larceny, and that specification was dismissed. The trial proceeded, and the court-martial convicted the accused of the other offenses charged. It imposed the maximum sentence allowed by law. On review before the board of review, accused’s appellate counsel urged a number of errors. These were considered at length by the board of review. It dismissed one of the larceny counts for an instructional error and determined that modification of the sentence would eliminate any prejudice resulting from the other errors.

We are constrained to disagree with the decision of the board of review. In addition to the errors noted by the board of review, there is substantial prejudicial hearsay. Thus, one of the alleged victims was permitted to testify to a statement made to him by a third person to the effect that he saw the accused “going through . . . [the victim’s] sea bag.” He was also permitted to testify that another victim of accused’s purported thefts “went down and told the Duty NCO that he had found” his property in the accused’s sea bag. A reading of the record of trial, leaves one with the conviction that the number and variety of errors deprived the accused of a fair trial. See United States v Williams, 8 USCMA 328, 24 CMR 138. Although the accused entered a plea of guilty to the unauthorized absence charge, that offense is so minor in relation to the others that we may also appropriately set aside the findings thereon. See United States v Thornton, 8 USCMA 57, 23 CMR 281.

The decision of the board of review is reversed, and the findings of guilty and the sentence are set aside. A rehearing may be ordered.
Before the Second Division,

June 1, 1960

No. 64255.

protests 214290-K and 206378-K (Detroit).

#### John V. Carr & Son, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with oral stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of cold drawn steel wire rods and that, if the merchandise were now before the collector, it would be classified as claimed, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO.: 2:11-CR-016

JUDGE SMITH

MAGISTRATE JUDGE KEMP

SAMUEL C. WOLFORD, 

Defendant.

ORDER

On February 18, 2011, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), recommending that the Court accept Defendant Wolford’s guilty plea to

Count One of the Information charging him with possession of child pornography, in violation of 18

U.S.C. §2252(a)(4)(B). Defendant, represented by counsel, waived his right to appear on the matter

before a District Judge. The Magistrate Judge conducted the colloquy required by Rule 11 of the

Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Defendant’s plea was knowing, voluntary, free from coercion,

and had a basis in fact. 

Defendant was specifically informed of his right to contest the Report and Recommendation

by filing any objections within 14 days of the issuance of the Report and Recommendation pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant did

not file any objections. 

Case: 2:11-cr-00016-GCS-NMK Doc #: 22 Filed: 03/15/11 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
-2-

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation and ACCEPTS

Defendant’s plea of guilty to Count One of the Indictment. Defendant is hereby adjudged guilty of

possession of child pornography. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 /s/ George C. Smith 

GEORGE C. SMITH, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case: 2:11-cr-00016-GCS-NMK Doc #: 22 Filed: 03/15/11 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

GROVER SELLERS 

*l-r01)N‘Y Gm4LRAL 

non. oeor,gr ?. 9hop 8ti 

conptroller of Pub1 ! o Amount8 

~a8wln, TO188 

De8r sir: 

Oplrllon lo. o-WSb 

Rot Refund of l onrr now on deporit 

now on doporlt in the Dope 

the iollmlag r8emmi 

ted a rafund 

. dhe -8 not 

ttlr 3trto an4 doer not 

Oxa Llomro. 

“4. :uro!-masd rhop soE applied for llcmae. 

TM aals of t%;e shop follrd to t:r COGpletad. 

“ilea adrlro aa to rk*t’:rr or not I may leeally 

make these mquoated refundr.’ 
non. Ooor@ 'I. Shopprrd - Fagr 2 

It 18 8pp8rOnt fIV,n the fOW?Oinfl tMt8 that I 1fO6U80 

m6 MvBr, la hot, i88Ued t0 th0 appliotInt8 in the f3ur iMtfJn008 

#at Out in JOUr mqUe8t. Tilla bolnf true, WI believe tho follow1% rule8 rtated ln our Opinion No. O-801 are ap?lloable to your 

pN8ent rBqUB8t. FO quot. the rolloviing fr0m 8ald opinloar 

"The abov8 oit8d rot *(Art. 734b, F.C.) lr reaulatorr, ba8Od upon tho rtate pollco porar to 8BfOgUITd 

the pub110 health rod the IO08 prorldod are lloen80 

iOB8 and not ln the natoro of an oooupatlon tar. 

OOX8ti t8. Salth (T. C. A. 1.932) 68 3.k. 2nd) 347; 

Hurt VI. Cooprr (mp. Ct. 1937) 110 s.%. 2nd) 896. 

Wo aall l ttrntlon to Ysotlon 14 whioh plVT1d.8 

for tho palmoot of both an l xacilnation and l lloo~r 

;;za ;; a p p liOBnt8 iOr l o Op Or 8tOr í8 liOOn8B Or Oo r tiSeotlon 17 prwiclte that aa rp?lioation tor 

6 04rim.e to oomluot l beauty parlor 8hPll bo *oooqmnled with B $10.00 payment. Thlr payment is not 

dOIi@.DBtOd by the 8tfltUtr 88 l II in8pOOtiOn fa0 0): OX- 

-15a ti00 r00, and wo think it wa8 the intention or 

the Lcglslaturo that the tlO.00 payment roqulred should 

bo ror the oortirioato or lloenaa is8uod. sinar the 

payment 18 for tbe oortlrioate, until the oertliloate 

18 granted, no aonsidorotlon bar boon reorirod thrrsror, 

and the state would not bo l ntltlrd to ntrln the monad 

upon r*j*atlon or tha rpplloation. 

*Tbo 8ame oon8ldrntionr apply to the annual paysentr whloh ln rarioua 8MtlO58 or the rot are oalled 

'rbnowal m8', 'BMUBl liOO58~ 1008 Mb 'B5nt.d Lygi8tmtiOtl fOO8.‘” (*PPaSWthO818 OUlW) 

Slnoo tho lloonses la the imttnoos here have never been 

isrued, and in rlsw of the forecolnp;, you are reepsottully adrlasd 

that It 1s the opinion or t!:i8 Espartmnt tbt JOU are suthorlzrd 

to luaue warrants on t,he 3uspensc lbnd of the 5tate Board of Talrdressers ant! Cosaetolo~lets ror reruna or each of the item listed 

by you. 

Yours very truly 

,‘-! (2 ,. ,- 

J rs’:c2 :.:.;- y r,y7 _, ,> 2 -- -.. .2s, 1 

~A_ , ,f 

.’ 

-.- .,-- 

JR:djm
#### Claude Pelham v. State.

176 So. 766

Division A.

Opinion Filed November 5, 1937.

*850
      *Clyde E. Mayhall',*for Plaintiff in Error;

*Cary D. Landis,*Attorney General, and *Tyrus A. Nor-wood,*Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Buford, J.

In this case we review judgment of conviction of the offense of breaking and entering a warehouse, the property of another, with intent to commit petit larceny.

The evidence shows that the warehouse was broken and entered and a lot of cottonseed taken therefrom; a truck was traced from the scene to where it was found in the back of a field belonging to defendant’s father and near where defendant lived. The truck belonged to defendant. Defendant was seen in the field where the truck was found on the same day on which the truck was found, but earlier in the day. This is the State’s case.

It is at most only sufficient to create a strong suspicion of the defendant’s guilt and does not meet the degree of certainty required for conviction. So, the judgment should be, and is, reversed.

So ordered.

Ellis, C. J., and Terrell, J., concur.

Whitfield, P. J., and Brown and Chapman, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

IN RE: NIGEL PARKER, SEPPO YLA-HERTTUALA,

Appellants

______________________ 

2017-2244

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 14/030,399.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

J. MARK POHL, Pharmaceutical Patent Attorneys, 

LLC, Morristown, NJ, argued for appellants. 

 MARY BETH WALKER, Office of the Solicitor, United 

States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, 

argued for appellee Andrei Iancu. Also represented by 

NATHAN K. KELLEY, THOMAS W. KRAUSE, WILLIAM 

LAMARCA. 

 ______________________ 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 
 PER CURIAM (PROST, Chief Judge, NEWMAN and 

LINN, Circuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

 

 July 17, 2018 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

 Date Peter R. Marksteiner

 Clerk of Court
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

**(18 U.S.C. Section 1350)**

In connection with the quarterly report of DayStar Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter endedMarch 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date therein specified (the “Report”), I, Magnus Ryde, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and 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 Exchange Act; and 

2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company. 

Date: May 24, 2010
No. 61950.

#### Regina Trading Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 319270-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of soup mixes similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Cresca Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(38 Cust. Ct. 211, C. D. 1864), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.