alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
32.2



SECTION
906 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

OF
INBIT CORP.



In
connection with the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of Inbit Corp. for the year ended December 31, 2016, the undersigned,
Choy Cheng Choong, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of Inbit Corp., does 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) | such
    Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016 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 such Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016 fairly presents, in all material
    respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Inbit Corp.



|Date:
    December 06, 2017 | /s/
    CHOY CHENG CHOONG                
|--------------------------- | -----------------------------------------
|                            | CHOY
    CHENG CHOONG                    
|                            | Chief
    Financial Officer and Treasurer
#### State *versus*Coombs.

A conviction for presuming to be a common seller of intoxicating liquors, within a specified period, is not a bar to a prosecution for a single act of selling such liquor within the same period.

Exceptions from the District Court, Rice, J.

Complaint, dated October 1, 1850, for selling intoxicating liquor, on the 30th of September, 1850. The defendant was found guilty, and sentenced to pay a fine of $20. From that judgment he appealed to the District Court. Afterwards at the term of the said court, held on the fourth Tuesday of the same October, the defendant was indicted for being a *common seller*of such liquors on said 30th of September, and on divers other days between that time and the findihg of said indictment. To the indictment he pleaded *nolo contendere.*After that proceeding, the prosecution on said complaint came up for trial, and the defendant, by leave of court, pleaded the conviction upon the indictment. The county attorney, admitting that the indictment for common selling embraced the time of the selling charged in the complaint, tendered an issue upon the defendant’s allegation that the said act of sale was one of the acts charged in the indictment, as constituting the offence of common selling. The issue was joined. There was evidence tending to prove the sale, as charged in the complaint.

The defendant requested the Judge to instruct the jury, that the conviction upon the indictment was a bar to the further prosecution of the complaint. But that request was noi complied with. The instruction was that a particular act of selling and the presuming to be a common seller were separate and distinct offences ; and that, if the act of selling, charged in the complaint, was proved, the burden was on the defendant to show that that act was one of the acts, which constituted the common selling charged in the indictment. The defendant excepted, after a verdict against him.

*Gould,*for the defendant.

*530Note.—This complaint was founded on the fifth section of chap. 205, of the year 1846. That section was repealed by the Act, chap. 211, of the year 1851.

Common selling is made up of individual acts of sale. The major offence includes the minor. Whart. Cr. Law, 114; 1 Chit. Cr. Law, 453, 4 and 5.

Where one offence is a necessary ingredient of another, a conviction for the latter bars all prosecution for the former. *2*Virgin. Cases, 159; 6 Dana, 295; 14 Pick. 90; 2 Mete. 413.

*Tallman,*Attorney General, for the State.

The replication asserts that the act charged in the complaint was not one of those which made up the offence of common selling ; and the jury have so found. That ends the case.

Wells, J.,

orally.—A single act of selling is an offence. Presuming to be a common seller is a different and higher offence. Both of these offences have their different and appropriate punishments. In the trial for common selling, the single acts of sale are not prosecuted. They are shown merely as evidence of the larger crime. Such proceedings do not expose to a second punishment for the same offence.

*Exceptions overruled.*
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

 EASTERN DIVISION 

 

JOHN D. COCKSHUTT, 

Plaintiff, 

 vs. Case No. 2:12-cv-532 

 Magistrate Judge King 

 

STATE OF OHIO, DEPARTMENT OF 

REHABILITATION & CORRECTION, 

et al., 

 

 Defendants. 

 

 

 OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court, with the consent of the parties 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), on plaintiff’s Request for Funds to 

Conduct Discovery (“Plaintiff’s Request for Funds”), Doc. No. 74. 

Plaintiff seeks $1,000.00 to hire an investigative company pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 3006A(e)(1) “to conduct discovery at Madison Correctional 

Institution.” Id. at pp. 1-2. Specifically, plaintiff intends to 

photograph the visiting room, hospital, receiving building, and the 

“[f]rontage and [b]acksides” of the Madison Correctional Institution. 

Id. Plaintiff argues that he is entitled to receive funds because he 

is proceeding in forma pauperis. Id. According to plaintiff, the 

discovery sought will “demonstrate to this Court the sheer ignorance 

of the allegations against this Plaintiff.” Id. 

Defendants oppose Plaintiff’s Request for Funds on the basis that 

plaintiff is not entitled to funds under the applicable statute, 18 

U.S.C. § 3006A. Doc. No. 75. Plaintiff has not filed a reply. 

Case: 2:12-cv-00532-NMK Doc #: 85 Filed: 05/31/13 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
2 

Plaintiff’s Request for Funds refers to 42 U.S.C. § 3006A; 

however, the Criminal Justice Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A, appears to be 

the applicable statute: 

Upon request.--Counsel for a person who is financially 

unable to obtain investigative, expert, or other services 

necessary for adequate representation may request them in 

an ex parte application. Upon finding, after appropriate 

inquiry in an ex parte proceeding, that the services are 

necessary and that the person is financially unable to 

obtain them, the court, or the United States magistrate 

judge if the services are required in connection with a 

matter over which he has jurisdiction, shall authorize 

counsel to obtain the services. 

18 U.S.C. § 3006A(e)(1). Section 3006A does not, however, apply in 

civil actions such as the case presently before the Court. See 18 

U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(1). Plaintiff’s Request for Funds, Doc. No. 74, is 

therefore DENIED. 

This matter is also before the Court on plaintiff’s Motion for 

Continuance, Doc. No. 76, in which plaintiff seeks “a 14 day 

continuance to proceed in forma pauperis” so that he can obtain 

financial documents to establish his indigence. Plaintiff was granted 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) on June 

18, 2012. Order, Doc. No. 2. No further action is required at this 

time for plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff’s Motion 

for Continuance, Doc. No. 76, is therefore DENIED as moot. 

May 31, 2013 s/Norah McCann King_______ 

 Norah McCann King 

 United States Magistrate Judge 

Case: 2:12-cv-00532-NMK Doc #: 85 Filed: 05/31/13 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
#### Jordan *& al. petitioners for certiorari.*

The District Court, on an appeal from the doings of County Commissioners, as to highways, have no authority to award costs against the original petitioners.

Whether an appeal can lie to the District Court from the doings of County Commissioners, in the matter of a *town way ; quere.*

The petitioners wished a town road to be established, extending from a point in one town to a point in another town.

Upon their application the selectmen of one of the towns located the part within its limits, but the town refused to ratify their doings. The selectmen of the other town declined to make any location. The petitioners then appealed to *473the County Commissioners, who ordered the road to be made in both of the towns.

One of the towns appealed, and the committee, appointed by the District Court, reported that the order of the County Commissioners ought to be wholly reversed. The District Court accepted the report, and awarded costs to the appellants *to be paid by the petitioners.*

To quash the proceedings of the District Court, so far as to vacate their said award of costs against the petitioners, this writ of *certiorari*is prayed for.

Morgan, for the petitioners.

*Davies,*contra.

By the court.

The District Court had no authority to adjudge costs *against the petitioners.*There is a provision, Stat. of 1847, c. 28, § 5, that if the judgment of the County Commissioners be *affirmed,*the *appellants*may be adjudged to pay costs arising after the appeal. But, in this case, the judgment of the County Commissioners was *reversed,*not *affirmed.*The discretionary power as to costs, given at the close of the section, extends only to allowances *from the county treasury.*The adjudication of the District Court, as to costs, was therefore erroneous, and the writ of *certiorari*must be granted. If it had been necessary to examine the point, it would perhaps be found that, *as to town ways,*no appeal to the District Court lies from the judgment of County Commissioners.
UGI UTILITIES INC.
COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES  EXHIBIT 12.1
(Thousands of dollars)
 Six MonthsEndedMarch 31,
    
    
    Year Ended September 30,2009
    
    
    2008
    
    
    2007
    
    
    2006
    
    
    2005
    
    
    2004Earnings:Earnings before income taxes
    
    $
    125,496
    
    
    $
    123,977
    
    
    $
    122,766
    
    
    $
    80,544
    
    
    $
    84,953
    
    
    $
    83,098Interest expense
    
    
    22,189
    
    
    
    39,065
    
    
    
    42,327
    
    
    
    24,102
    
    
    
    18,079
    
    
    
    17,698Amortization of debt discount and expense
    
    
    311
    
    
    
    467
    
    
    
    462
    
    
    
    243
    
    
    
    247
    
    
    
    233Estimated interest component of rental expense
    
    
    950
    
    
    
    1,619
    
    
    
    1,506
    
    
    
    1,675
    
    
    
    1,568
    
    
    
    1,477$
    148,946
    
    
    $
    165,128
    
    
    $
    167,061
    
    
    $
    106,564
    
    
    $
    104,847
    
    
    $
    102,506Fixed Charges:Interest expense
    
    $
    22,189
    
    
    $
    39,065
    
    
    $
    42,327
    
    
    $
    24,102
    
    
    $
    18,079
    
    
    $
    17,698Amortization of debt discount and expense
    
    
    311
    
    
    
    467
    
    
    
    462
    
    
    
    243
    
    
    
    247
    
    
    
    233Allowance for funds used during
construction (capitalized interest)
    
    
    102
    
    
    
    139
    
    
    
    179
    
    
    
    85
    
    
    
    22
    
    
    
    11Estimated interest component of rental expense
    
    
    950
    
    
    
    1,619
    
    
    
    1,506
    
    
    
    1,675
    
    
    
    1,568
    
    
    
    1,477$
    23,552
    
    
    $
    41,290
    
    
    $
    44,474
    
    
    $
    26,105
    
    
    $
    19,916
    
    
    $
    19,419Ratio of earnings to fixed charges
    
    
    6.32
    
    
    
    4.00
    
    
    
    3.76
    
    
    
    4.08
    
    
    
    5.26
    
    
    
    5.28
EXHIBIT 32.1
------------

                              UNITED-GUARDIAN, INC.
                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  United-Guardian,  Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Alfred
R. Globus, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  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 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:  August 5, 2005                    /s/ Alfred R. Globus
                                         --------------------------
                                         Alfred R. Globus
                                         Chief Executive Officer
# C_2015346EN.01000501.xml

| 19.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 346/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 346/5

---

Action brought on 14 July 2015 — European Commission v Romania

(Case C-366/15)

(2015/C 346/05)

Language of the case: Romanian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Sanfrutos Cano and L. Nicolae, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Romania

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2013/28/EU of 17 May 2013 amending Annex II to Directive 2000/53/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on end-of-life vehicles (1) or, in any event, by failing to notify the Commission of such measures, Romania has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(1) of that Directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2013/28/EU of 17 May 2013 amending Annex II to Directive 2000/53/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on end-of-life vehicles (1) or, in any event, by failing to notify the Commission of such measures, Romania has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(1) of that Directive;

1

| — | order Romania to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Romania to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for transposing the directive into national law expired on 22 August 2013.

---

(1)  OJ 2013 L 135, p. 14.

1

---
Exhibit 31.2


                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Paul Spector, certify that,

(1) I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10Q/A of Aris Industries,
Inc.;

(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 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 officers 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 our 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 quarterly report is being prepared;

(b) (Intentionally omitted)

(c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our 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

(d) 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


<PAGE>


(5) The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent function):

(a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal controls 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 Company's internal controls over
financial reporting;

Date:  August 13, 2004


/s/ Paul Spector
    Chief Financial Officer
**
Certification of the Principal Executive OfficerPursuant to 15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)(Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

I, Glenn F. Tilton, the Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officerof United Air Lines, Inc. (the "Company"), certify that:(1)     I have reviewed this quarterly reporton Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2003 of the Company; (2)     Based on my knowledge, this report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report; (3)     Based on my knowledge, the financial statements,and other financial information included in this report, fairly presentin all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented inthis report; (4)     The Company's other certifying officer andI are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controlsand procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e))for the Company and we have: (a)   Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Company,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which this reportis being prepared; (b)     Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company'sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as ofthe end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;and (c)     Disclosed in this report any change in theCompany's internal control over financial reporting that occurred duringthe Company's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected,or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company's internal controlover financial reporting; and(5)     The Company's other certifying officer andI have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the Company's auditors and the audit committeeof Company's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): (a)     All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Company'sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and (b)     Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the Company'sinternal control over financial reporting. /s/ Glenn F. TiltonGlenn F. TiltonUnited Air Lines, Inc.Chairman, President and Chief Executive OfficerAugust 1, 2003  

**
August 5, 1970

No. 70-46

#### Ronald Edward Rouse, PVT, U. S. Marine Corps v United States.

ORDERED:

That said Petition be, and the same is, hereby dismissed, without prejudice to the right of petitioner to raise the issue of delay before the United States Navy Court of Military Review, and thereafter in a Petition for Grant of Review to this Court should such course be considered necessary or appropriate.
(Reap. Dec. 8297)

#### United States *v.*Willgold Electronics Sales Corp.

Entry No. 896227.

(Decided April 1, 1954)

*Warren E. Burger,*Assistant Attorney General, for the plaintiff.

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for the defendant.

Lawbence, Judge:

The proper dutiable value of certain loudspeakers imported from England constitutes the subject of this appeal for a reappraisement.

The parties hereto have submitted this appeal for decision upon a stipulation to the effect that at the time of exportation of the merchandise tabulated below 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 as follows:

> 12" 15, watt P. M. Loudspeakers,

> Dustproof Type Audiom 60 *@£*8-12-6 each

> 12" 15, watt High Fidelity

> P. M. Loudspeakers

> Dustproof, Type Axiom 150 @£ 10-5-6 each

> both less 33%% discount, packed.

It was also agreed by the parties that there was no higher foreign value, as defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (c)), as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, for the merchandise involved herein at the time of exportation.

Upon the agreed facts, I find export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of said act (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (d)), to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of said merchandise and that such value is “£8-12-6 each” as to the “P. M. Loudspeakers, Dust-proof Type Audiom 60,” and “£10-5-6 each” as to the “High Fidelity P. M. Loudspeakers Dustproof, Type Axiom 150,” both less 33){ percent discount, packed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.