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 Global Realty  Development Corp.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2005 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I, Robert Kohn, Chief Executive  Officer and Principal  Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 and 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.



Date:  November 21, 2005                          By: /s/ Robert Kohn
                                                  ----------------
                                                  Robert Kohn
                                                  Chief Executive Officer and
                                                  Principal Financial Officer
No. 43203.

Suit 4200.

#### Hershey *Corporation*v. *United States.*

Abstract 38927. Appeal dismissed December 4, 1939; not yet reported.
#### Green Point Savings Bank, Respondent, v Joseph J. St. Hilaire et al., Defendants. Samuel F. Isidore, Nonparty-Appellant.

[699 NYS2d 458]

—In an action to foreclose a mortgage, nonparty Samuel F. Isidore appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LeVine, J.), dated August 27, 1998, as denied his motion, *inter alia,*to vacate the Referee’s report of sale.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

A notice of pendency is constructive notice to any person who purchases from any defendant named in the notice. In addition, a person whose conveyance is recorded after the filing of the notice is bound by all proceedings taken in the action after such filing to the same extent as a party *(see,*CPLR 6501; *American Auto. Ins. Co. v Sansone,*206 AD2d 445; *Whelan v J.T.T. Contrs.,*155 AD2d 451). Furthermore, his or her interest is deemed foreclosed upon entry of a properly-obtained judgment of foreclosure *(see,*CPLR 6501; *Westchester Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. v H.E.W. Constr. Corp.,*29 AD2d 670). The appellant’s interest here was acquired after a notice of pendency was filed, and was consequently foreclosed with entry of the *204judgment of foreclosure. Therefore, there is no basis to vacate the Referee’s report of sale. Mangano, P. J., Ritter, Joy, Mc-Ginity and Smith, JJ., concur.
No. 42062.

#### Protest 851364-G of New York Merchandise Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Sullivan, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *May*v. *United States*(T. D. 47760) and *Woolworth*v. *United States*(T. D. 48573) the tennis rackets in question were held dutiable at 30 percent under paragraph 1502.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane lunani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). N H Y / R es ear ch NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON

UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T M A R IA IS A B E L S A N JU R ; M A R IA I S A B E L S A N JU R , J r ., P et i t i o n ers, v. E R I C H . H O L D E RJ r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 07- 71133 A ge nc yN os . A 029- 494- 298

A 029- 494- 301 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d M ar c h 16, 2010 ** B efo re: P R E G E R S O N , L E A V Y , an dR A W L IN S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. M ar i aI s abe lS anj urand he rdaught e r , M ar i aI s abe lS anj ur , na t i ve s and ci t i zen s o f P an am a, p et i t i o n fo r rev i ew o f th e B o ardo f Im m i g rat i o n A p p eal s’ (“ B IA ”) order denyi ng thei r m ot i on t o reopen. W e have j uri sdi ct i on un der 8 

# FI LED MA R 31 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSN H Y / Res ea r ch 07- 71133 2 U . S . C . § 1 25 2. W e r evi ew for abu se of di sc re t i on the deni alof a m ot i on t o reopen an dr e v ie w d e n o v o du e p r o c e s s c la im s du e to in e f f e c tiv e a s s is tan c e o f

c o u n s e l. Moh am m ed v. G on zales , 400 F . 3d 785, 791- 92 ( 9th C i r . 2005) . W e de nythe p e titio n f o rr e v ie w . T h e B I A d idn o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in d e n y in g P e titio n e r s ’ m o tio n to re op en w here P et i t i on er s l ac ked “ pl ausibl e groun ds for r el i ef . ” Se e R o ja s - G a rc ia v . A s h c r o ft , 3 3 9 F .3 d8 1 4 , 8 2 6 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) . P e titio n e r s ’ r e m a in in g c o n te n tio n s ar e u np e r s u a s iv e . P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.
EXHIBIT 23.1



CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-3 No. 333-109183, Form S-3 No. 333-110678, Form S-3 No. 333-113192, Form S-3 No. 333-117441 and Form S-3 No. 333-117443) of Avanex Corporation and in the related Prospectus and the Registration Statements (Form S-8 No. 333-109917, Form S-8
No. 333-99645, Form S-8 No. 333-74124, Form S-8 No. 333-55364, Form S-8/S-3 No. 333-34202 and Form S-8 No. 333-42952) pertaining to the 1998 Stock Plan, as amended, the 1999 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, the 1999 Directors Option Plan, the
Holographix Inc. 1996 Stock Option Plan, as amended, the Holographix Inc. 2000 Stock Option Plan, as amended, and the LambdaFlex, Inc. 2000 Stock Plan of our report dated July 25, 2004 with respect to the consolidated financial statements and
schedule of Avanex Corporation included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended June 30, 2004.



|                      |  |                         
|--------------------- |  | ------------------------
|                      |  | /s/    ERNST & YOUNG
LLP
|                      |  |                         
|Palo Alto, California |  |                         
|September 9, 2004     |  |
**Exhibit 31.2**CertificationsI, Gary Allhusen, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2007, of Caneum, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presentedin this report;4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have: a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly duringthe period in which this report is being prepared; b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and c. Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case ofan annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting;5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small businessissuer’s auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer’s board of directors(or persons performing the equivalent functions): a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the small business issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the small business issuer’s internal control overfinancial reporting.Date: September 10, 2007   /s/ Gary Allhusen     Gary Allhusen, Chief Operating Officer  (Principal Financial Officer)
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellant, v. Robert C. THOMPSON, Appellee.

No. 81-1847.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 29, 1981.

Decided Nov. 12, 1981.

George W. Proctor, U. S. Atty., Kenneth F. Stoll, Chief Asst. U. S. Atty., Little Rock, Ark., on brief for appellant.

Leon B. Catlett, Catlett & Henderson, Little Rock, Ark., on brief for appellee.

Before BRIGHT and ARNOLD, Circuit Judge, and DAVIES,* Senior District Judge.

*

 RONALD N. DAVIES, Senior District Judge, District of North Dakota, sitting by designation.

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

The United States appeals, under 18 U.S.C. § 3731, the ruling of the district court dismissing on grounds of collateral estoppel a ten-count indictment against defendant Robert C. Thompson. We have reviewed the underlying facts, which are not in dispute, and the extensive discussion and analysis of principles of collateral estoppel applicable thereto as made in the opinion of the Honorable Elsijane T. Roy, District Judge. We affirm the order dismissing the indictment on the basis of Judge Roy’s well-reasoned opinion, reported at 517 F.Supp. 1214 (E.D.Ark.1981). *See Ashe v. Swenson,*397 U.S. 436, 90 S.Ct. 1189, 25 L.Ed.2d 469 (1970).
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 China BAK Battery, Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period  ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the
Securities  Exchange  Commission  on the  date  hereof  (the  "Report").  I,  Li
Xiangqian,  Chief  Executive  Officer of the  Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  ss. 1350, as adopted  pursuant to ss. 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.





By: /s/ Li Xiangqian
    -----------------------
    Li Xiangqian
    Chief Executive Officer
    August 16, 2005
#### Richard E. JONES, Jr. v. Carole Cooper JONES.

No. 98-C-0504.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 15, 1998.

In re Jones, Carole Cooper;—Defendant; applying for reconsideration of this Court’s Order dated April 9, 1998; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 97-CA-1012; Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court, Div. “J”, No. 96-7169.

Reconsideration denied. Judgment is definitive.

VICTORY, J., not on panel.
Order entered October 30, 2017 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-17-01047-CV 

EDDY'S MOTORS, LLC, Appellant 

V. 

SANTANDER CONSUMER USA, INC. D/B/A CHRYSLER CAPITAL, Appellee 

On Appeal from the 101st Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DC-15-14698 

ORDER 

On October 24, 2017, we ordered this appeal submitted without the reporter’s record as 

appellant had failed to comply with our directive that it provide written verification of payment 

of the reporter’s fee. By letter filed October 25, 2017, court reporter Thu Bui informs us the fee 

has been paid, and she requests until November 4, 2017 to file the record. We GRANT the 

request, VACATE our October 24th order, and ORDER the reporter’s record be filed no later 

than November 4, 2017. 

/s/ CRAIG STODDART 

 JUSTICE
#### Chas. H. Asche & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States

No. 6531.

Entry No. 750433, etc.

Invoices dated Nottingham, England, February 27, 1946, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., April 5, 1946, etc.

(Decided November 19, 1946)

*Strauss & Hedges (Hadley S. King*of counsel) for the plaintiffs.

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

Tilson, Judge:

The appeals listed in schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof, involve the proper dutiable values of certain merchandise imported from Great Britain. The record upon which said appeals have been submitted for decision shows that the issues herein are the same in all material respects as the issues involved in *United*States v. *Pitcairn,*C. A. D. 334, and the record therein has been admitted in evidence in-this case.

Upon the established facts and following the authority cited, I find and hold the proper dutiable export values of the merchandise covered by said appeals to be the values found by the appraiser, less any amounts added on entry by the importers to meet advances made by the appraiser in similar cases then pending on appeal. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Opinion issued August 31 , 2012

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO S . 01
- 12
- 00 344
- C R 01
- 12
- 0063 4
- C R

——————————— IN RE NORRIS SKINNER , Relator

O riginal Proceeding s on Petition s for Writ s of Mandamus



### MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator Norris Skinner filed petition s for writ s of mandamus complaining of Judge Ellis’s actions in the underlying case

. 1 Skinner has since filed motions to dismiss, which we grant.

1 The Honorable Mark Kent Ellis , judge of the 351st District Court of Harris County, Texas. The underlying lawsuit is State v. Skinner , No. 1241923 (351st Dist. Ct., Harris County, Tex., Jan. 24, 2011), appeal dism isse d , No. 01

- 12

- 00290

- CR (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] June 28, 2012, no pet.).2

Accordingly, we d ismiss the petition s for writ s of mandamus.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Keyes, and Sharp

. Do not publish. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.2( b).
FACTOR AERIAL IMAGER Y UAV SPECIFICATION SH EET



## Factor Aerial Imagery UAV Components list.

Air Frame

DJI S1000

http://www.dji.com/product/spreading

- wings

- s1000

Configuration: Octocopter

Take Off Weight: 6Kg ~ 11Kg / 13.2lbs ~ 24.25lbs

Aircraft Weight: 4.2Kg / 9.25lbs

Diagonal Width: 1045mm/41.14"

Motors: 8x DJI 4114 400kv

ESC: 40A Integrated

Landing Gear: Retractable

Arms: Carbon Fiber Booms, Foldable

Propellers: 1552 High Performance, Foldable

Plug Types: XT150 Flight Battery, XT60 Electronics

Manufactured by: DJIFACTOR AERIAL IMAGER Y UAV SPECIFICATION SH EET



### Flight Control System

DJI A2 ,IOSD Mini on screen display, DJI GPS Puck. LED battery low V warning/Satellite indicator.



### DJI GPS Puck. LED battery low V warning/Satellite indicator.FACTOR AERIAL IMAGER Y UAV SPECIFICATION SH EET



### RC Controllers :FACTOR AERIAL IMAGER Y UAV SPECIFICATION SH EET

2 Fatuba 14 Sg controllers, binded for Pilot & Camera Operator. Communicates RX

- TX for flight

control and TX 5.8GHZ for Pilot camera.



### MotorsFACTOR AERIAL IMAGER Y UAV SPECIFICATION SH EET

Stator Size 41×14mm. kV 400rpm/V Max Power 500W. ESC 40a integrated



### Props

Foldable Propeller (1552/1552R)

Material High strength performance engineered plastics

Size 15×5.2inch



### Batteries

Foxtech 6s 22,000 mAh Lipo 25c

- 50cFACTOR AERIAL IMAGER Y UAV SPECIFICATION SH EET



### Gimbal

z

- 15 Zenmuse



### Onboard Came ra Equipment:

High Definition

Canon 5D Mark lll with EF 85mm f/1.2L ll USM lens

CAMERA

- http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/slr_cameras/eos_5d_mark_iii

LENS

- http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_85mm_f_1_2l_ii_usm

Gopro 4 Black

http://shop.gopro.com/hero4/hero4

- black/CHDHX

- 401.html
No. 96-6018.

#### Martinez-Perez *v.*United States.

C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-6842

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ERIC MARTIN PEPKE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:15-cr-00319-FL-1; 5:17-cv-00631-FL)

Submitted: November 19, 2019 Decided: November 22, 2019

Before WILKINSON and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eric Martin Pepke, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Eric Martin Pepke seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the 

recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) 

motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of 

appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s 

assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 

473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district 

court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the 

dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of 

the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Pepke has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, although we grant Pepke’s motion to file an amended 

informal brief, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Before The Second Division,

April 10, 1943

No. 48191.

#### Protest 999403-G of Accurate Millinery Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *United States*v. *Armand Schwab*(30 C. C. P. A. 72, C. A. D. 218) the protest was sustained.
#### WHAM v. UNITED STATES.

Civil Action No. 1655—47.

United States District Court District of Columbia.

Sept. 27, 1948.

N. Meyer Baker, of Washington, D. C., for plaintiff.

George Morris Fay, U. S. Atty. and John P. Burke, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Washington, D. C., for defendant.

SCHWEINHAUT, District Judge.

Plaintiff is a member of the Metropolitan Police. While driving a motorcycle on official business he was in collision with a truck driven by an employee .of the Treasury Department, also on official business at-the time. Plaintiff was injured and sues the United States under the provisions of the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C.A. § 921 et seq.1

It is stipulated that the expenses of hospitalization and medical treatment, including x-rays, were paid from the Policfe and Firemen’s Fund. Chap. 5, Tit. 4, D.C. Code 1940. He was treated for his injuries by the Board of Police and Fire ' Surgeons as provided in Sec. 4 — 503, D.C. Code 1940. He returned to duty after three months convalescence, during which period he received his full salary as a member of the Metropolitan Police, and'he lost no earnings during that period. He is still a member of the police force and is eligible to all disability, retirement and pension benefits available to the personnel of the police department by virtue of the statute above mentioned.

When the United States consents to be sued in tort, as it has by the ToTt Claims Act, those members of a class for which a comprehensive system of compensation has otherwise been provided may not seek benefits under the Act. Dobson v. United States, 2 Cir., 27 F.2d 807, certiorari denied 278 U.S. 653, 49 S.Ct. 179, 73 L.Ed. 563; Bradey v. United States, 2 Cir., 151 F.2d 742; Dahn v. Davis, 258 U.S. 421, 42 S.Ct. 320, 66 L.Ed. 696. And see opinion of Chesnut, D. J., in Jefferson v. United States, D.C.Md., 77 F.Supp. 706.

The plaintiff, as a member of the Metropolitan Police, is not an employee of the United States but is an employee of the municipal corporation, the District of Columbia. Griffith v. Rudolph, 54 App. D.C. 350, at page 352, 298 F. 672. But the United States has established by statute the Police and Firemen’s Relief Fund, Sec. 4 — 501 et seq., D.C.Code 1940 and supports it to the extent of 40 per centum of its cost. Sec. 4 — 516. Whether plaintiff had an election to accept the benefits of the Relief Fund or to proceed under the Tort Claims Act is not before me and, consequently, no opinion is expressed. The fact is, however, that he was provided for pursuant to the relief statute and he is *127entitled to such future benefits as his rights may appear.

In my opinion, the Federal Tort Claims Act is not applicable in the circumstances and the motion for summary judgment is granted. An appropriate order will be signed.

1

 In 1948 Revision, see 28 U.S.C.A. § 2671 et seq.