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 Asset Acceptance Capital Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2009
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), we, Rion B. Needs, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Mark A. Redman, Senior Vice President-Finance and Chief Financial Officer
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|(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/ Rion B. NeedsRion B. NeedsPresident and Chief Executive OfficerMay 1, 2009/s/ Mark A. RedmanMark A. RedmanSenior Vice President-Finance and Chief Financial OfficerMay 1, 2009
#### J. J. Gavin & Co., Inc. (Mark Cross Co.) *v.*United States

No. 6352.

Entry No. 719843, etc.

Invoices dated Walsall, England, August 30, 1941, etc.

Certified September 6, 1941, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., October 15, 1941, etc.

(Decided September 18, 1946)

*Jordan & Klingaman (Edward F. Jordan*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

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

Mollison, Judge:

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

(Stipulation omitted.)

On the agreed facts I find the cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402 (f) 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 importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
(Reap. Dec. 8899)

Entry No. 884532, etc.

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

(Decided July 10, 1957)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for the plaintiff.

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

*564WxlsoN, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed-in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the respective parties hereto] subject to the approval of the Court, that the export value of all merchandise with the exception of chip roping and florists’ pins at the time of exportation to the United States covered by the Appeals to Reappraisement enumerated on the schedule attached hereto and made a part hereof at which time such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal market of the country from which exported in the usual wholesale quantity and in the ordinary course of trade for export to the United States including 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 unit values less nondutiable charges in the amounts as set forth on the respective invoices covering inland freight, insurance, storage, hauling and lighterage.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that there was no higher domestic value for merchandise such or similar to the merchandise herein at the time of exportation thereof.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the Appeals to Re-appraisement enumerated on the schedule attached hereto and made a part hereof 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, except the chip roping and florists’ pins, and that such values were the appraised unit values, less nondutiable charges in the amounts, as set forth on the respective invoices, covering inland freight, insurance, storage, hauling, and lighterage.

Insofar as the appeals relate to chip roping and florists’ pins, they are hereby dismissed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
#### John Claflin *et*al., Resp’ts, *v.*Joseph Silberg, App’lt.

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

*Filed January 24, 1890.)*

Attachment—Affidavit. .

An attachment cannot be obtained upon the affidavit of an attorney whose statements are made on information and belief, the sources of which are not stated, or upon an affidavit of the party alleging fraud but giving no facts to justify such statement.

Appeal from order denying motion to vacate attachment.

*F.*Bien, for app’lt; *Abram Fling,*for resp’ts.

Per Curiam.

The allegation that the defendant disposed of his property with intent to defraud his creditors rests wholly upon the affidavit of the attorney, who had no personal knowledge of the facts. His statements depended upon information acquired by him, the sources of which have not been disclosed, and the practice is settled that an attachment cannot be obtained upon such an affidavit.

The affidavit made by one of the plaintiffs does not strengthen this part of the case, for while he states that the defendant assigned and disposed of and secreted his property with intent to cheat and defraud his creditors, no facts are disclosed which would justify this statement.

The order should be reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the attachment vacated.

Van Brunt, P. J., Brady and Daniels, JJ., concur.
No. 50168.

#### Protest 52172-K of F. W. Woolworth Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

It was stipulated that the harmonicas in question are similar in all material respects to the merchandise the subject of Abstract 49930, which record was incorporated herein. In accordance therewith the-claim at 40 percent under paragraph 1541 was sustained.
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 DP & D, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the three months ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Dina Staheli, acting in the capacity as the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(1)

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



(2)

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





/s/ Dina Staheli

Dina Staheli

Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

May 10, 2005
(Reap. Dec. 10523)

#### The American Import Co. et al. *v.*United States

Entry No. 40752, etc.

(Decided June 4, 1963)

*Stem & SJiostalc*for the plaintiffs.

*Jolm W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Wilson, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation entered into between counsel for the respective parties:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the respective parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, as to the merchandise covered by the entries the subject of the appeals for reappraisement enumerated in the attached Schedule of Cases, which is incorporated herein, that, on the dates of exportation thereof to the United States, the market value *482or tlie price at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition packed ready for shipment to the United States, were the invoice unit values, plus the If.O.B. charges set out on the invoices, but not including the buying commissions as stated on the invoices.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that as to any of the merchandise covered by the entries the subject of the appeals for reappraisement enumerated in the attached Schedule of Oases which is included in the list of articles designated by the Secretary of the Treasury in T.D. 54521 as provided for in Sec. 6(a) of the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, Public Law 927, 84th Congress, which is subject to appraisement under Sec. 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, that there were no higher foreign values for such or similar merchandise on the dates of exportation involved herein.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the appeals for re-appraisement enumerated in the attached Schedule of Cases may be deemed submitted for decision on the foregoing stipulation.

On the agreed facts, I find and hold export value, as that value is defined in section 402a (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise herein involved and that such values were the invoice unit values, plus f.o.b. charges set out on the invoices, but not including the buying commissions, as stated on said invoices.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
No. 50182.

#### Protests 52096-K, etc., of Ascot, Ltd., et al. (New York).

*252Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the court found that the facts herein agreed upon were such as to bring the case within the holding in *John Barr*v. *United States*(11 Cust. Ct. 88, C. D. 801), which record was incorporated herein. (See *John Barr*v. *United States,*324 U. S. 83, decided February 5, 1945.) In accordance therewith it was held that the currency of the invoices should be converted at the buying rate in the New York market at noon on the day of exportation (the “free” rate of exchange for pounds sterling), as certified by the Federal Reserve bank and set forth by the collector on each of the entries. The protests were sustained to this extent.
Exhibit 32.2



Registrant (Commission File Number 333-110029):



Broder Bros., Co.

Six Neshaminy Interplex, 6thFloor

Trevose, Pennsylvania 19053



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 Broder Bros., Co. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 26, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David J. Hollister, Chief Financial Officer of
Broder Bros., Co., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



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



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



May 10, 2005



BRODER BROS., CO.By:

/s/ DAVID J. HOLLISTERDavid J. HollisterChief Financial Officer




30
##### 



Exhibit 32.3 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL
OFFICER REGARDING PERIODIC REPORT CONTAINING
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS I, Derek Chang, the Interim Co-Chief Financial Officer of CCH II, LLC and CCH
II Capital Corp. (collectively, the Company) in compliance with 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, hereby certify that, the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
period ended September 30, 2004 (the Report) filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission:  
    
    fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company. /s/ Derek ChangDerek ChangInterim Co-Chief Financial Officer(Co-Principal Financial Officer)November 12, 2004
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8888 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8888

 To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to require the Secretary 
     of Homeland Security to provide information regarding voting 
                   restrictions to asylum applicants.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 28, 2024

 Mr. Gallego introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to require the Secretary 
     of Homeland Security to provide information regarding voting 
                   restrictions to asylum applicants.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Voting Clarity Act of 2024''.

SEC. 2. PROVISION OF INFORMATION REGARDING VOTING RESTRICTIONS TO 
              ASYLUM APPLICANTS.

    Section 208(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
1158(d)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
            ``(8) Provision of information regarding voting 
        restrictions.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall provide 
        information to each alien applying for asylum under this 
        section on the restrictions on voting and the penalties for 
        voting unlawfully under Federal law, including under section 
        611 of title 18, United States Code, at the time of such 
        application. Information under this paragraph shall be provided 
        in a form and language that the alien can understand.''.
                                 <all>
```
---

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, Georgios Polyhronopoulos, hereby certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

|(1) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Healthmed Services
      Ltd. for the period ended June 30, 2008 (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 Healthmed Services Ltd.                                                                

Dated: August 19, 2008



| | */s/ Georgios Polyhronopoulos*                                 
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------
| | Georgios Polyhronopoulos                                       
| | President, Secretary, Treasurer and Director                   
| | (Principal Executive Officer, Principal
      Financial Officer
| | and Principal Accounting Officer)                              
| | Healthmed Services Ltd.                                        



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 Healthmed
Services Ltd. and will be retained by Healthmed Services Ltd. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
Cite as 2017 Ark. 124

No. CV-16-1015

MATTHEW W. BARNETT

 APPELLANT

V.

DEXTER PAYNE, ASSISTANT 

DIRECTOR, ARKANSAS 

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION;

MS. RAMSEY, GRIMES UNIT 

CLASSIFICATION OFFICER; AND MR. 

PEARCE, GRIMES UNIT 

CLASSIFICATION OFFICER

APPELLEES

Opinion Delivered April 13, 2017

PRO SE APPEAL FROM PULASKI 

COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

[No. 600T-50-6 ]

HONORABLE TIMOTHY DAVIS 

FOX, JUDGE

REMANDED.

PER CURIAM

Appellant Matthew W. Barnett submitted to the Pulaski County Circuit Court a pro 

se petition for leave to proceed in forma pauperis so that he might initiate an action seeking 

judicial review of an administrative action taken by the named appellees, employees of the 

Arkansas Department of Correction, who had denied a grievance filed by Barnett that was 

related to his application for a work-release program. Barnett also submitted to the circuit

court an affidavit of indigency in support of his request to proceed in forma pauperis. 

The petition to proceed as a pauper and the underlying pleading were file marked 

and assigned a miscellaneous case number used to docket documents not associated with a 

specific circuit court case number. The circuit court denied the in forma pauperis petition 

without stating the factual basis for the denial. Barnett filed a timely appeal from the denial 

SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS.
Cite as 2017 Ark. 124

2

of his in forma pauperis petition, and the record on appeal was lodged in this court on 

November 10, 2016. Barnett filed a timely brief. The State has not filed a responsive brief. 

Under Rule 72 of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure (2016), the right to proceed 

in forma pauperis is based on, among other things, indigency and the circuit court’s 

satisfaction that the alleged facts indicate a colorable cause of action. Dunahue v. Dennis, 

2016 Ark. 285, at 2 (per curiam); Boles v. Huckabee, 340 Ark. 410, 12 S.W.3d 201 (2000) 

(per curiam). A colorable cause of action is a claim that is legitimate and may reasonably be 

asserted given the facts presented and the current law or a reasonable and logical extension 

or modification of it. Dunahue, 2016 Ark. 285, at 2 

Rule 72 mandates that the circuit court make a specific finding of indigency based 

on the petitioner’s affidavit. Here, the circuit court did not address the validity of Barnett’s 

affidavit of indigency nor did it address whether Barnett’s underlying pleading stated a 

colorable cause of action. Appellate courts do not make findings of fact but rather review 

findings of fact of the circuit court to determine whether they are clearly erroneous. Ward 

v. Williams, 354 Ark. 168, 177, 118 S.W.3d 513, 518 (2003). Because the circuit court 

failed to enter an order setting forth the factual basis for denying Barnett’s in forma pauperis 

petition, the matter is remanded for that purpose. The court is directed to file a 

supplemental order within thirty days and submit that order to this court in compliance with 

Rule 72. When the remand is returned, a new briefing schedule will be set for the appeal.

Remanded.

Matthew W. Barnett, pro se appellant.

One brief only.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

JC POOL AND SPA, INC.,

Respondent

v.

ARIE OREN,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 714 MAL 2016

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 7th day of March, 2017

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
Exhibit 10.4


             


            Invesco Ltd.


             


            Compensation Arrangements for Members of the Board of Directors


             


            The Compensation Committee has approved the following fee arrangements for non-executive directors who serve during 2008:


             


            Basic Fee —For 2008, non-executive directors (other than the Chairman of the Board) will receive an


            annual basic fee in the amount of $120,000.


             


            Chairman Fee — In lieu of the above, the Chairman of the Board will receive an annual fee of $400,000.


             


            Audit Committee Chairman— The chairman of the Audit Committee will receive an additional fee of


            $25,000.


             


            Compensation and Nomination and Corporate Governance Committees — The chairman of the Compensation


            Committee and the chairman of the Nomination and Corporate Governance Committee will each receive


            an additional fee of $15,000.


             


            Director Fees Paid in Shares —Each non-executive director will also receive an award of shares in the


            aggregate amount of $70,000. Such shares will be paid in four quarterly installments of $17,500, each of


            which will be paid on the second business day following the public announcement of the company’s quarterly


            earnings results for the year. The number of shares awarded each quarter will be computed based on the New


            York Stock Exchange closing price of Invesco common shares on such date. Such shares may not be sold or


            otherwise disposed of during the period of the recipient’s service on the Board.
#### *In re*Petition of John Newton, Com’r of Public Works.

*Nelson J. Waterbary,*for app’lt; *JO. J. Lean,*for resp’t.

Appeal dismissed on the ground the order is discretionary, with costs.

All concur.