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 of JohnsonDiversey Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for
the quarter ended September 29, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned officers of the Company certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to such officers 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 as of the dates and for the
periods expressed in the Report.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       |  |                                                              
|---------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: November 9, 2006 |  | /s/ Edward F. Lonergan                                       
|                       |  | Edward F. Lonergan, President and Chief Executive
Officer    
|                       | 
|                       |  | /s/ Joseph F. Smorada                                        
|                       |  | Joseph F. Smorada, Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being
filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.

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.
No. 44111.

#### Protest 697690-G of E. E. Schenck & Co. (Seattle).

Opinion by

Evans, J.

At the hearing the protest was dismissed by consent of counsel.
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.
  August 6, 2010Date
    /s/ Richard J. JarosinskiRichard J. Jarosinski, President and Chief Executive OfficerAugust 6, 2010Date
    /s/ John N. PesarsickJohn N. Pesarsick, Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-11-00576-CR

MICHAEL FRED WEHRENBERG APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM THE 43RD DISTRICT COURT OF PARKER COUNTY

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

----------

Appellant Michael Fred Wehrenberg attempts to appeal from his conviction 

for possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine, of one gram or 

more but less than four grams. The trial court’s certification states that this “is a 

plea-bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal” and that “the 

defendant has waived the right of appeal.” See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). On 

January 3, 2012, we notified Wehrenberg that this appeal may be dismissed 

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

unless he or any party desiring to continue the appeal filed a response showing 

grounds for continuing the appeal. Wehrenberg’s appellate counsel filed a 

response agreeing that “there is no right to appeal in this cause”; thus, no 

grounds were shown for continuing the appeal. In accordance with the trial 

court’s certification, we therefore dismiss this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 

25.2(d), 43.2(f).

SUE WALKER

JUSTICE

PANEL: WALKER, MCCOY, and MEIER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: February 2, 2012
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 22-30462

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Josh Tapp,

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:19-CR-35-4

______________________________

Before King, Haynes, and Graves, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The attorney appointed to represent Josh Tapp has moved for leave 

to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 

U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). 

Tapp has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the 

relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 16, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-30462 Document: 00516931665 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/16/2023
No. 22-30462

2

assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate 

review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is 

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and 

the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

Case: 22-30462 Document: 00516931665 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/16/2023
#### In the Matter of John Lormont H., Petitioner, v Arlene Francis R, Respondent. In the Matter of Anthony Patrick A., Petitioner, v Arlene Francis R, Respondent.

Family Court, Bronx County,

January 8, 1979

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

. *Elaine L. Kaplan*for John Lormont H., petitioner. *Bernard M. Bier*for Anthony Patrick A., petitioner.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Elrich A. Eastman, J.

These paternity proceedings present a common issue of law. That issue is whether a putative father may commence a paternity proceeding naming only the deceased natural mother as the respondent. Stated differently, the issue is whether the Family Court has the authority to enter an ex parte order of filiation.

Petitioner, John H. has submitted a petition alleging that he is the father of Carlotta Annette R. born out of wedlock on September 19, 1971 to the deceased respondent mother. Similarly, petitioner Anthony Patrick A. has submitted petitions alleging that he is the father of Antoinette Latitia A. born out of wedlock on March 9, 1974 and Anthony Patrick A. born out of wedlock on January 26, 1977 to the deceased respondent mother. Presently, these three children reside with the maternal grandmother who is seeking custody.

*888This question was recently decided in *Matter of Henry v Rodd*(95 Misc 2d 996). In the *Henry*case the petition named a deceased putative father, whereas in the instant cases, the petitions name a deceased mother. The court is not persuaded by the argument that this fact distinguishes these proceedings from *Henry*and therefore exempts them from the finding made therein.

In requiring notice to an adverse party, article 5 of the Family Court Act does not contemplate preclusion of a putative father from his right to establish paternity. However, as the court in *Henry*aptly noted (pp 997-998): "the procedural requirements of the statute must first be met. * * * The petitioner * * * in naming only the decedent as the respondent would effectively change the action from one on notice to an ex parte proceeding. This court can find no authority or intent in the statute which would permit an order of filiation to be entered, or which would even permit a paternity proceeding to be commenced without the petitioner naming as the respondent an adverse party capable of contesting the allegations.”

The court in *Henry*determined that the adverse party to whom service must be directed is the personal representative of the decedent.

The fact that no contest is foreseeable is not a factor in jurisdiction since the adversarial nature of the proceeding is clearly intended. Moreover, the fact that the father is the petitioner does not alter the statutory intent, notwithstanding the praiseworthiness thereof.

Accordingly, this court finds that it may not enter an order of filiation or commence a paternity proceeding in the absence of service of a summons upon a personal representative of the decedent. Hence, petitioners’ applications for issuance of summonses are denied. The petitions are dismissed without prejudice to renew when a proper respondent is named in accordance with this decision.
(Reap. Dec. 9193)

#### Baker Irons & Dockstader, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 885424-1/2.

(Decided July 16, 1958)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Lawrence, Judge:

When the above-enumerated appeal for a re-appraisement was called for hearing, there was no appearance on behalf of plaintiff.

An examination of the official record discloses no reason for disturbing the presumptively correct value for the merchandise found by the appraiser.

*496I, therefore, find and hold the proper dutiable value of the merchandise covered by said appeal to be the value found by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
No. 54156.

#### Nat E. Berzen, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 125713-K, etc. (Buffalo).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
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, Irma N. Colón-Alonso, 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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Mokita Ventures, Inc. for the year ended February 28, 2013 (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 Mokita Ventures, Inc.   Dated: June 12, 2013/s/ Irma N. Colón-AlonsoIrma N. Colón-AlonsoPresident, Chief Executive Officer,
Chief Financial Officer, Secretary, Treasurer and
Director (Principal Executive Officer,Principal Financial Officer and
Principal Accounting Officer)Mokita Ventures, 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 Mokita Ventures, Inc. and will be retained by Mokita Ventures, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
No. 40275.

Suit 4167.

#### Sears, *Roebuck & Co.*v. *United States.*

Abstract 37706 reversed.
No. 76-417.

#### Kielwein *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

Intrastate Distributors, Inc.

Plaintiff

 v.

C-B Beverage Corporation, et al.,

Defendants.

:

:

:

:

:

Civil Action 2:10-cv-952

Judge Marbley

Magistrate Judge Abel

ORDER CLOSING CASE

This action was opened by the Clerk of Court on October 21, 2010, pursuant

to an October 18, 2010 order of the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Michigan transferring the instant case to this district. However, on

September 29, 2010, Defendant C-B Beverage Corporation filed notice that it had

removed this action to the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern

District of Ohio. As the action had already been removed to bankruptcy court, the

order transferring it here appears to have been entered in error.

The Court has been notified by counsel that this matter is pending as an

adversary proceeding in the bankruptcy case. On December 15, 2010, it issued an

order for any party to show cause why this action should not therefore be closed as a

duplicative proceeding opened through inadvertence or mistake. On December 29,

2010, Plaintiff Intrastate Distributors, Inc. filed a response confirming that the

1

Case: 2:10-cv-00952-ALM-MRA Doc #: 17 Filed: 01/10/11 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
bankruptcy of Defendant is proceeding as In re C-B Beverage Corporation, Case No.

2:10-bk-61100 in the bankruptcy court in this district, and that the instant action is

pending as Intrastate Distributors, Inc. v. C-B Beverage Corporation, et al., Adv.

Pro. 10-02474, an adversary proceeding in that bankruptcy. No party appears to

dispute that this case should be closed.

Therefore, accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Clerk of Court close this case

as having been opened through inadvertence or mistake, as the action at bar was

removed to the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Ohio,

where it is being adjudicated.

s/Algenon L. Marbley 

United States District Judge 

2

Case: 2:10-cv-00952-ALM-MRA Doc #: 17 Filed: 01/10/11 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8551 

To require the Director of National Intelligence to prepare and make available 

a report on the wealth and corrupt activities of the leadership of the 

Chinese Communist Party, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 23, 2024 

Mr. OGLES (for himself, Mr. DONALDS, Mr. PERRY, Mr. MOORE of Alabama, 

Mr. TIFFANY, Mr. LAWLER, Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina, Ms. VAN

DUYNE, Mr. LAMALFA, Mr. WILSON of South Carolina, Mr. BURLISON, 

and Mr. MCCORMICK) introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence 

A BILL 

To require the Director of National Intelligence to prepare 

and make available a report on the wealth and corrupt 

activities of the leadership of the Chinese Communist 

Party, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Confronting CCP Ma5 lign Influence Act’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8551 IH

1 SEC. 2. REPORT ON WEALTH AND CORRUPT ACTIVITIES OF 

2 THE LEADERSHIP OF THE CHINESE COM3 MUNIST PARTY. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 90 days after the 

5 date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of National 

6 Intelligence, in consultation with the Secretary of State, 

7 shall prepare and make available to the public an unclassi8 fied report on the wealth and corrupt activities of the lead9 ership of the Chinese Communist Party, including the 

10 General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party and 

11 senior leadership officials in the Central Committee, the 

12 Politburo, the Politburo Standing Committee, and any 

13 other regional Party Secretaries. 

14 (b) HEARING REQUIREMENT.—Not later than 180 

15 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Direc16 tor of National Intelligence, or the Director’s designee, 

17 shall appear before the Permanent Select Committee on 

18 Intelligence of the House of Representatives and the Se19 lect Committee on Intelligence of the Senate to present 

20 testimony in an open hearing regarding the findings of 

21 the report required under subsection (a). 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32.2





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of IntelGenx Technologies Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Paul A. Simmons, Principal Financial and Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §. 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.











July 3, 2014
By:
/s/Paul A. SimmonsPaul A. SimmonsChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

HELEN FALLOON and GORDON FALLOON,

Appellants,

v.

U.S. BANK, N.A., as Trustee, on Behalf of the Holders of the

J.P. MORGAN ALTERNATIVE LOAN TRUST 2006-A3 MORTGAGE 

PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, and

PHOENICIAN COVE HOMOWNERS ASSOCIATION,

Appellees.

No. 4D19-897

[January 30, 2020]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Barry Stone, Senior Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE15-

008220 (11).

Roy D. Oppenheim, Geoffrey E. Sherman and Mia M. Singh of 

Oppenheim Pilelsky, P.A., Weston, for appellants.

Allison Morat of Bitman, O'Brien & Morat, PLLC, Lake Mary, and 

Joseph J. Huss and Benny A. Ortiz of Krinzman, Huss, Lubetsky, Feldman 

& Hotte, LLP, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee U.S. Bank, N.A.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LEVINE, C.J., MAY and GERBER, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Exhibit 99.6



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

AS ENACTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE U.S. SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002



The Cash Store Financial Services
Inc. (the “Company”) is filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, its annual report
on Form 40-F/A for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2012 (the “Report”).



I, Gordon Reykdal, Chairman and
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as enacted pursuant to section 906 of the
U.S. Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(i) the Report fully complies
with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



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





| | By:    | /s/ Gordon Reykdal                   | 
| | ------ | ------------------------------------ | 
| | Name:  | Gordon J. Reykdal                    | 
| | Title: | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer | 
| | Date:  | May 24, 2013                         |
No. 59084.

protest 247173-K (New York).

#### Gold Seal Shoe Corp. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

An examination of the papers failing to disclose anything which would tend in any way to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the decision of the collector, the protest was overruled.
#### Patrick Ronan, *Respondent v.*The Hudson River Bridge Company at Albany, *Appellant.*

— Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.
#### Williamsport Redevelopment Authority Appeal.

Argued January 14, 1969.

April 23, 1969:

Before Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O’Brien, Roberts and Pomeroy, JJ.

*Richard H. Roesgen,*with him *McNerney, Page, Vanderlin & Hall,*for appellant.

*Clyde E. Williamson,*with him *Williamson & Cupp,*for appellee.

Opinion

Per Curiam,

*559Judgment affirmed.

Mr. Chief Justice Bell took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
EXHIBIT 31.2

I, Jamie L. Buskill, certify that:

1)

I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Boardwalk Pipelines, LLC;

2)

Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3)

Based on my knowledge, the consolidated financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4)

The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a)

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under its supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report its conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c)

Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5)

The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on its most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a)

All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b)

Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.





Dated:  May 5, 2005

/s/ Jamie L. Buskill



Jamie L. Buskill

Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
(Reap. Dec. 8736)

#### D. Hauser, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 832073; 814285.

(Decided January 17, 1957)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Wilson, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the respective parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, that the merchandise covered by the Appeals to Reappraisement enumerated above consists of electric bulbs imported from Japan.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the market value or the price at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of Japan in the usual wholesale quantity and in the ordinary course of trade for export to the United States including the costs of containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise ready for shipment to the United States was the appraised value less the item of buying commission. There was no higher foreign value for such or similar merchandise herein at the time of exportation thereof.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the Appeals to Re-appraisement enumerated above may be submitted for decision 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 merchandise here involved, and that such value in each instance was the appraised value, less the item of buying commission.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.