alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.1  CERTIFICATION  Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)  Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Innocom Technology Holdings, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:  1. The Annual Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2014 (the "Form 10-Q") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  2. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Innocom Technology Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by Innocom Technology Holdings, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


|                    |                                             
|------------------- | --------------------------------------------
|Dated: May 19, 2014 | /s/ William Yan Sui Hui                     
|                    | William Yan Sui Hui, Chief Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 175 (Wednesday, September 10, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47658-47659]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-23927]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. TM98-1-73-001]


Ozark Gas Transmission System; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC 
Gas Tariff

September 4, 1997.
    Take notice that on August 29, 1997, Ozark Gas Transmission System 
(Ozark) tendered for filing to become part of its FERC Gas Tariff, 
First Revised Volume No. 1, the following substitute revised tariff 
sheet, with a proposed effective date of October 1, 1997:

Substitute Sixteenth Revised Sheet No. 4

    Ozark states that on August 20, 1997, it submitted for filing a 
tariff sheet intended to reflect an Annual Charge Adjustment (ACA) 
charge of $.0021/Dth. However, unbeknownst to Ozark, on August 20, 
1997, the Commission issued a revised calculation of the ACA charge, 
resulting in an ACA charge of $.0022/Dth. Ozark states that this filing 
is intended to revise Ozark's August 20 filing to include the 
Commission's adjusted ACA charge.
    Ozark states that it is amending its transmission rate schedules to 
reflect the Commission-proscribed ACA unit charge of $.0022 per 
Dekatherm. Ozark states that this is a $.0002 increase from the 
currently effective ACA unit charge. Ozark states that its filing is 
submitted pursuant to Section 154.402 of the Commission's Regulations 
and Section 11 of the General Terms and Conditions of Ozark's FERC Gas 
Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1.
    Ozark states that copies of this filing were served on Ozark's 
jurisdictional customers.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Section

[[Page 47659]]

385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests 
must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's 
Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in 
determining the appropriate action to be taken but will not serve to 
make the Protestants parties to the proceeding. Copies of this filing 
are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection 
in the Public Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-23927 Filed 9-9-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
<PAGE>

                       AMERICAN RADIO SYSTEMS CORPORATION

   STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES AND
                           PREFERRED STOCK DIVIDENDS

                                   EXHIBIT 12

  The following table reflects the computation of the ratio of earnings to
fixed charges and preferred stock dividends for the periods indicated.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                         YEAR ENDED   YEAR ENDED   YEAR ENDED
                                        DECEMBER 31, DECEMBER 31, DECEMBER 31,
                                            1995         1996         1997
                                        ------------ ------------ ------------
                                          (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT RATIO DATA)
<S>                                     <C>          <C>          <C>
COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS:
Income (loss) from continuing
 operations before extraordinary loss
 and income taxes......................   $15,934      $ 9,961      $(8,065)
ADD:
Interest expense (1)...................    12,497       22,287       59,749
Rent expense (2).......................       531        1,312        2,908
                                          -------      -------      -------
Earnings as adjusted...................    28,962       33,560       54,592
                                          =======      =======      =======
COMPUTATION OF FIXED CHARGES:
Interest expense (1)...................    12,497       22,287       59,749
Rent expense (2).......................       531        1,312        2,908
Preferred dividends (3)................       815        4,973       31,164
                                          -------      -------      -------
Fixed charges..........................    13,843       28,572       93,821
                                          =======      =======      =======
Ratio of earnings to combined fixed
 charges and Preferred stock
 dividends.............................      2.09x        1.17x         --
Deficiency in earnings required to
 cover combined fixed charges and
 preferred stock dividends.............                              39,229
</TABLE>
--------
(1) Interest expense includes amortization of deferred financing costs.
(2) The interest element of rent expense is assumed to be 30% of gross
    operating rent charges.
(3) Includes dividends on redeemable preferred stock.
Exhibit 32




In connection with the Quarterly Report of International Commercial Television, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Kelvin Claney, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Richard Ransom, Chief Financial 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, to the best of their knowledge and belief:






(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/ Kelvin Claney


Kelvin Claney, Chief Executive Officer




/s/ Richard Ransom


Richard Ransom, Chief Financial Officer




Date: November 12, 2010
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Terrence DONAHUE.

No. 60099.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 6, 1977.

In re: State of Louisiana, through the District Attorney, Ossie Brown, applying for supervisory writs.

*332Writ denied. Ruling of trial court is correct.

SANDERS, C. J., and SUMMERS, J., are of the opinion that a writ should be granted.

DENNIS, J.,

dissents. The ruling of the trial court was incorrect.
EXHIBIT 32.1  CERTIFICATION  Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)  Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Innocom Technology Holdings, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:  The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2012 (the "Form 10-Q") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Innocom Technology Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by Innocom Technology Holdings, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.  Date: August 21, 2012/s/ William Yan Sui HuiWilliam Yan Sui Hui, Chief Executive Officer
109TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1820

AN ACT

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service

located at 6110 East 51st Place in Tulsa, Oklahoma,

as the ‘‘Dewey F. Bartlett Post Office’’.

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

2

S 1820 ES

1 SECTION 1. DEWEY F. BARTLETT POST OFFICE.

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

3 Postal Service located at 6110 East 51st Place in Tulsa,

4 Oklahoma, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Dewey

5 F. Bartlett Post Office’’.

6 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg7 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United

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

9 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Dewey F. Bartlett

10 Post Office’’.

Passed the Senate March 3, 2006.

Attest:

Secretary.
109TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1820

AN ACT

To designate the facility of the United States PostPost Office’’. Tulsa, Oklahoma, as the ‘‘Dewey F. Bartlett al Service located at 6110 East 51st Place in
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1872 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1872

    To permit the cancellation of certain loans under the Robert T. 
         Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 17, 2005

  Ms. Landrieu (for herself and Mr. Vitter) introduced the following 
 bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland 
                   Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To permit the cancellation of certain loans under the Robert T. 
         Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act.

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

SECTION 1. CANCELLATION OF LOANS.

    Section 2(a) of the Community Disaster Loan Act of 2005 (Public Law 
109-88) is amended by striking ``Provided further, That notwithstanding 
section 417(c)(1) of the Stafford Act, such loans may not be 
canceled:''.

SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendment made by this Act shall be effective on the date of 
enactment of the Community Disaster Loan Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-
88).
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 4.1
    Amendment No. 1 Company Rights Agent
       1.
    
    The definition of Expiration Date, as set forth in Section
1 of the Rights Agreement, is hereby amended to read in its entirety:Expiration Date shall have the meaning set forth in Section 7(b) of this
Rights Agreement.2.
    
    Section 7(b) of the Rights Agreement is hereby amended to read in its
entirety:Subject to the other provisions of this Rights Agreement (including Section 7(e)),
the registered holder of any Right Certificate may exercise the Rights evidenced
thereby (except as otherwise provided in this Rights Agreement) in whole or in part
at any time after the Distribution Date,




---



##### 



upon surrender of the Right Certificate, with the form of election to purchase on
the reverse side thereof properly completed and duly executed, to the Rights Agent
at the office of the Rights Agent designated for such purpose, together with
payment of the Purchase Price for each one one-thousandth (1/1,000th) of a
Preferred Share (as such fraction may be adjusted as provided in this Rights
Agreement) as to which the Rights are exercised, at or prior to the earlier of (i)
the Close of Business on May 18, 2009 (the Final Expiration Date) and
(ii) the time at which the Rights are exchanged or redeemed as provided in Section
11 and Section 24 respectively (the earlier of clauses (i) and (ii) being referred
to herein as the Expiration Date).3.
    
    The Exhibits to the Rights Agreement shall be deemed restated to
reflect this Amendment No. 1, mutatis mutandis.4.
    
    The term Agreement as used in the Rights Agreement shall be deemed
to refer to the Rights Agreement as amended hereby.5.
    
    This Amendment shall be effective upon execution by the parties
hereto and, except as set forth herein, the Rights Agreement shall remain in full
force and effect and shall be otherwise unaffected hereby. Notwithstanding
anything to the contrary herein, each of the Company and the Rights Agent hereby
acknowledges and agrees that at 5:00 P.M., New York City time on the Final
Expiration Date (as amended hereby), the Rights Agreement shall terminate and be
of no further force and effect.6.
    
    This Amendment may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of
which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one
and the same instrument.




---



##### 



THE PEPSI BOTTLING GROUP, INC.,byName:Title:MELLON INVESTOR SERVICES LLC,
as Rights AgentbyName:Title:
#### NEW PLAN REALTY TRUST, Appellant/Petitioner, v. The TOWERS APARTMENTS, INC., etc., et al., Appellees/Respondents.

Nos. DD-20 and DD-145.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Sept. 13, 1977.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 20, 1977.

James W. Smith of Hoffman, Hendry, Parker & Smith, Daytona Beach, for appellant/petitioner.

Louis Ossinsky of Ossinsky & Krol, Day-tona Beach, for appellees/respondents.

PER CURIAM.

New Plan Realty Trust filed notice of interlocutory appeal in Case No. DD-20 from an order denying its motion to stay this proceeding pending the disposition of a suit in the State of New York covering the same subject matter and issues as are raised in this suit. Subsequently, the trial court entered an order modifying its previous order and granting the stay as to this Florida action except as to discovery proceedings. Appellant then filed a petition for common law writ of certiorari in Case No. DD-145 seeking review of the foregoing two orders of the trial court and simultaneously therewith filed a notice of voluntary dismissal as to Case No. DD-20. In the meantime, appellees had filed cross-assignments of error in Case No. DD-20 and objected to the notice of voluntary dismissal. Appellees also moved to consolidate the two cases and by this court’s order of September 7, 1976, the cases were consolidated. We treat the entire matter as common law cer-tiorari rather than interlocutory appeal.

The trial court properly exercised its discretion in granting the stay of this cause of action pending trial of the same issues in the New York suit but abused its discretion in excepting discovery proceedings from the stay. The whole purpose of the stay is to avoid duplicate proceedings in both New York and Florida, and we find no reasonable basis for allowing duplicate discovery proceedings.

Certiorari is granted and the cause is remanded with directions to vacate the exception to the stay which would allow discovery to proceed during the stay.

McCORD, C. J., and MILLS, J., concur.

BOYER, J., dissents in part and concurs in part.

BOYER, Judge,

concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I am of the view that the learned trial judge is allowed a broader discretion than that afforded by my brethren, and that he did not abuse that discretion in allowing discovery proceedings to continue. I would affirm.
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

Pursuant to the requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act) and
Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. §1350), Harry F. Hixson, Chief Executive Officer of Sequenom, Inc. (the Company) hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:



| | 1. | The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the Quarterly
Report) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or section 15(d), of the Exchange Act, and
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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

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 (SEC) or its staff upon request.

This certification
accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the SEC and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended (whether made before or after the date of the Quarterly Report), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has set his hand hereto as of the 7th day of May,
2010.



/s/ HARRY F. HIXSON,
JR.Harry F. Hixson, Jr.Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, William Whittle, President and Chief Executive Officer of General Gold Corporation, 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-QSB of General Gold Corporation for the six month period ended October 31, 1003 (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 General Gold Corporation.

Dated: February 13, 2004

/s/ William WhittleWilliam Whittle
President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)

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 General Gold Corporation and will be retained by General Gold Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
256 La. 263

#### SECURITY HOMESTEAD ASSOCIATION v. Louis F. SCHNELL, Jr.

No. 50562.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 8, 1970.

In re: W. H. Ward Lumber Co., Inc., Intervenor applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 232 So.2d 898.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal the judgment is correct.

McCALEB, J., thinks that the application should be granted.
#### STATE of Florida v. Carvin CLAYTON.

No. 39064.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Dec. 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 226 So.2d 717.
#### Alvan A. OUTLAND, Appellant, v. Edmund L. WOOD, William T. Moore, Jr., E. D. Davis, William Biggs and Harold D. Sewell, Appellees.

No. 68-317.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

June 27, 1969.

Frank McClung, Brooksville, for appellant.

Richard E. McGee, Sr., and Daniel B. Merritt, Sr., Brooksville, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, a real estate broker registered in Alabama but not registered in Florida, was engaged by Biggs and Sewell for themselves and as agents of appellees to make an appraisal of certain real property located in Florida. In an action brought by appellant against all five parties to enforce payment under the contract for his services, summary judgment was rendered for ap-pellees on the ground that Florida Statutes § 475.01 (1967), F.S.A. precludes recovery by an unlicensed broker.

Other questions may remain for determination against Biggs and Sewell. This appeal raises only the question of *contractual*liability of defendants Wood, Moore and Davis.

Section 475.01(2) includes an appraiser in the definition of broker. Section 475.41 provides that a contract to appraise is invalid unless the broker is registered. Section 475.42(3) states that a single act brings a person within the statute.

Appellant may not recover on the contract as it is invalid under the terms of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, F.S.A. Cf. Dugas v. DuBois, Fla.App. 1969, 221 So.2d 771.

Affirmed.

LILES, C. J., and MANN and McNULTY, JJ., concur.