alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 99.1

                            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 Pacific Magtron  International  Corp.
(the  "Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Theodore  S. Li,  Chief  Executive  Officer and Chief  Financial  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 to the best of my 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 result of operations of
          the Company.

/s/ Theodore S. Li

Theodore S. Li
Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer
August 14, 2002

This  certification  accompanies  this  report  pursuant  to Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and  shall not be deemed  filed by the  Company  for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
#### Lawlest J. LeBLANC v. Audrey Weibelt, wife of Lawlest J. LeBLANC.

No. 8689.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

Jan. 11, 1978.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 14, 1978.

Writ Granted March 31, 1978.

Aubrey E. Pate, Kenner, for plaintiff-appellant.

Tucker, Schonekas & Garrison, Arthur S. Mann, III, New Orleans, for defendant-ap-pellee.

Before REDMANN, LEMMON and STOULIG, JJ.

*705LEMMON, Judge.

Lawlest LeBlanc has appealed from that part of a judgment of divorce which awarded his wife alimony. The decision on appeal turns on the wife’s proof of her freedom from fault.

Mr. LeBlanc stated his reason for leaving the matrimonial domicile was that his wife refused to have sexual relations for over two years, told him she didn’t love him, and urged him to leave.

Mrs. LeBlanc, who described their marriage as “happy” until her extraordinarily silent husband suddenly left home, denied she told her husband she didn’t love him or encouraged him to leave, but she neither denied his testimony about her refusal of sex nor attempted to explain the refusal.

Mutual fulfillment of reasonable sex desires is a marital obligation. *Phillpott v. Phillpott,*285 So.2d 570 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1973), cert. den. La., 288 So.2d 643. Voluntary and persistent refusal of normal sexual relations, without any attempt to explain or justify the refusal (such as prior outrageous behavior by the denied spouse) constitutes cruel treatment and outrage of such a nature as to render living together insupportable. C.C. art. 138(3).

In this case Mrs. LeBlanc’s failure to deny her husband’s statements about refusal of sex leaves that testimony uncontra-dicted. She has thus failed to prove her entitlement to alimony under C.C. art. 160.

For these reasons, the judgment of the trial court is reversed in part, and it is now ordered that the wife’s demand for alimony be dismissed. Each party is to bear his own costs.

*REVERSED IN PART AND RENDERED.*
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 30, 2013

p0923 

# Order

Clerk September 30, 2013

147304

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIG AN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 147304

COA: 308407

Wayne CC: 11

- 005434

- FH

JAMES LAWRENCE QUINNEY,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 28, 2013

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
EXHIBIT 32

   Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Acting Chief Financial Officer
            pursuant to 8 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to
                 Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

                                  CERTIFICATION

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Bancorp International Group, Inc. a
Nevada corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended
September 30, 2001 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350 as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my
knowledge and upon a review of the Report that:

(1)      the Report of the Company filed today pursuant to Section 13(a) of the
         Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), fully
         complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act;
         and

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

This certification is based upon, among other things, my responsibilities as
Chief Executive Officer, my own due diligence and representations made by
certain members of the Company's senior management.





Dated: January 13, 2006                       /s/ Tom Megas
                                                  ---------------------------
                                                  Tom Megas
                                                  Chief Executive Officer and
                                                  Acting Chief Financial Officer
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 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350,  as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, in connection  with the filing of the Annual Report
on Form 10-K for the Fiscal  Year Ended  December  31,  2003 (the  "Report")  by
Tarrant Apparel Group ("Registrant"), the undersigned hereby certifies that:

1.   to  the  best  of  my  knowledge,   the  Report  fully  complies  with  the
     requirements  of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the  Securities  Exchange Act of
     1934; and

2.   to the best of my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly
     presents, in all material respects,  the financial condition and results of
     operations of Registrant.



Date:    April 7, 2004                      By:    /s/    Gerard Guez
                                                   -----------------------------
                                                          Gerard Guez,
                                                    Chief Executive Officer
#### Randoll PITTS, Jr. v. STATE.

No. 38988.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 1969.

Habeas corpus denied without opinion.
#### John J. SHAW, Appellant, v. SEABOARD COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, a railroad corporation, Appellee.

No. L-190.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. First District.

Dec. 16, 1969.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 15, 1970.

Horton & Schwartz, and Green & Hastings, Miami, for appellant.

Rogers, Towers, Bailey, Jones & Gay, Jacksonville, for appellee.

*276PER CURIAM.

Appellant John J. Shaw, plaintiff below, appeals from a final order of the trial court dismissing without prejudice this Federal Employer’s Liability action on the doctrine of forum non conveniens.

Plaintiff Shaw, a resident of North Carolina, alleged that he was injured on February 1, 1968, while an employee of appellee Railroad at Rocky Mount, North Carolina. Defendant Railroad is a Virginia corporation, having its principal place of business in Jacksonville, Florida. At the time he entered his order dismissing the instant cause, the trial judge did not have the benefit of this Court’s recent decision in Adams v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company, 224 So.2d 797 (Fla.App.1st 1969), which is an “on all fours” case. Upon the authority of same, the judgment of dismissal by the trial judge in the instant cause is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.

JOHNSON, C. J., CARROLL, DONALD K., and RAWLS, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           9,397
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             366
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 7,158
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     19,127
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          32,305
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            31,471
<LOANS>                                         61,011
<ALLOWANCE>                                    (1,567)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 137,249
<DEPOSITS>                                     124,766
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              3,456
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          1
<COMMON>                                            10
<OTHER-SE>                                       9,016
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 137,249
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  5,590
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,813
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   705
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 8,108
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               2,704
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 140
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            5,264
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    1,007
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  7,714
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,230)
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,230)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.24)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.24)
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.16
<LOANS-NON>                                      2,026
<LOANS-PAST>                                     4,204
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   679
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    1,007
<RECOVERIES>                                       266
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,567
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,567
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0



</TABLE>
#### Jimmie Lee HART, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 77-529.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 28, 1977.

Jack 0. Johnson, Public Defender, W. C. McLain, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, and *662Carol C. Murphy, Research Asst., St. Peters-burg, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and William I. Munsey, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed without prejudice to file a petition for habeas corpus in this court. *See Baggett v. Wainwright,*229 So.2d 239 (Fla.1969).

HOBSON, Acting C. J., and GRIMES and RYDER, JJ., concur.
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 Tullys Coffee Corporation (the Company) on
Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended April 1, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 13, 2007 (the Report), I, Kristopher S. Galvin, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (principal
accounting officer) of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                                   
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    KRISTOPHER S.
GALVIN                                                        
|Kristopher S. Galvin                                                               
|Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (principal accounting officer)
|July 13, 2007
```

[Federal Register: December 1, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 230)]
[Notices]               
[Page 74768]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr01de10-99]                         

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 7253]

 
Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Norwegian Painters''

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 
236-3 of August 28, 2000, I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibition ``Norwegian Painters,'' imported from abroad 
for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural 
significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with 
the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition 
or display of the exhibit objects at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, 
New York, New York, from on or about December 15, 2010, until on or 
about December 15, 2012, and at possible additional exhibitions or 
venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. I have 
ordered that Public Notice of these Determinations be published in the 
Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the exhibit objects, contact Paul W. Manning, Attorney-Adviser, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-
632-6469). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, SA-5, L/PD, 
Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.

    Dated: November 22, 2010.
Ann Stock,
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, 
Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2010-30118 Filed 11-30-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 184 (Tuesday, September 23, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 49674]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-25250]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Energy Research


Basic Energy Sciences Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act (Public Law 92-463, 86 Stat. 770), notice is given of a meeting of 
the Basic Energy Sciences Advisory Committee.

DATES: Wednesday, October 8, 1997--8:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m.; Thursday, 
October 9, 1997--8:30 a.m.-3:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Gaithersburg Holiday Inn, #2 Montgomery Village Avenue, 
Gaithersburg, MD 20879.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dr. Patricia M. Dehmer, Basic Energy Sciences Advisory Committee, U.S. 
Department of Energy, ER-10, GTN, 19901 Germantown Road, Germantown, MD 
20874-1290, Telephone: (301) 903-3081.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Purpose of the Meeting

    The Committee will provide advice and guidance with respect to the 
basic energy sciences research program.

Tentative Agenda

    The meeting will be devoted to the report of the Synchrotron 
Radiation Light Source Panel. Presentations and discussion will cover 
synchrotron radiation light sources. After an overview of synchrotron 
radiation light sources, each facility will make a brief presentation. 
Members of the Synchrotron Radiation Light Source Panel then will make 
presentations summarizing their findings followed by the Chair of the 
Panel, Professor Robert Birgeneau, presenting the Panel's 
recommendations.
    A detailed agenda will be available two weeks before the meeting 
from the Office of Basic Energy Sciences.

Public Participation

    The meeting is open to the public. The Chairperson of the Committee 
is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will, in his 
judgment, facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Any member of the 
public who wishes to make oral statements pertaining to agenda items 
should contact Patricia Dehmer at the address or telephone number 
listed above. Requests must be received at least five days prior to the 
meeting and reasonable provision will be made to include the 
presentation on the agenda. Public comment will follow the 10 minute 
rule.

Minutes

    The minutes of this meeting will be available for public review and 
copying at the Freedom of Information Public Reading Room, 1E-190, 
Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 
20585, between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except 
holidays.

    Issued in Washington, D.C. on September 18, 1997.
Rachel M. Samuel,
Deputy Advisory Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 97-25250 Filed 9-22-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
#### Ozzie Joseph NEGRON, Appellant, v. William HEIDTMAN, Sheriff of Palm Beach County, Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-154.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

April 25, 1969.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Palm Beach County; Joseph P. Metzger, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Jack MULLINS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 77-1058.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 13, 1977.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 16, 1978.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Thomas G. Murray, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Arthur Joel Berger and Ronald A. Dion, Asst. At-tys. Gen., for appellee.

Before PEARSON and NATHAN, JJ., and CHARLES CARROLL (Ret.), Associate Judge.

PER CURIAM.

The single point presented on this appeal urges that the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained through a claimed unreasonable search and seizure. The record shows that a police officer stopped the defendant and spoke to him upon observing the defendant riding a bicycle slowly through a residential area in the very early morning hours. It appears without controversy that while speaking to the defendant, the officer became cognizant of a strong odor of marijuana and saw a clear, plastic bag containing a brown substance protruding from the de*606fendant’s shirt pocket. The officer thereupon arrested the defendant and took possession of the contraband.

Defendant claims that the stop and subsequent confiscation of the contraband was illegal, relying on the principle set forth in *Vollmer v. State,*337 So.2d 1024 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976).

We hold that no unreasonable search appears in this record and that the fact that the police officer stopped the appellant to speak to him, under the circumstances of this case, was not an infringement of defendant’s Fourth or Fourteenth Amendment rights. See *Terry v. Ohio,*392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); and *Wilson v. Porter,*361 F.2d 412 (9th Cir. 1966). See also *Wigfall v. State,*323 So.2d 587 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); and cf. *U. S. v. Alien,*472 F.2d 145 (5th Cir. 1973).

Affirmed.
```

[104th Congress Public Law 16]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

<DOC>
[DOCID: f:publ16.104]

[[Page 109 STAT. 190]]

Public Law 104-16
104th Congress

                                 An Act

 
  To reauthorize appropriations for certain programs under the Indian 
   Child Protection and Family Violence Prevention Act, and for other 
             purposes. <<NOTE: June 21, 1995 -  [S. 441]>> 

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

SECTION 1. REAUTHORIZATION OF PROGRAMS.

  Sections 409(e), 410(h), and 411(i) of the Indian Child Protection and 
Family Violence Prevention Act (25 U.S.C. 3208(e), 3209(h), and 3210(i), 
respectively) are each amended by striking ``and 1995'' and inserting 
``1995, 1996, and 1997''.

    Approved June 21, 1995.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--S. 441:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 104-53 (Comm. on Indian Affairs).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 141 (1995):
            Apr. 26, considered and passed Senate.
            June 8, considered and passed House.

                                  <all>
```
#### Willard L. JENNINGS, Appellant, v. William HEIDTMAN, Sheriff of Palm Beach County, Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-153.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

April 25, 1969.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Palm Beach County; Joseph P. Metzger, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
EXHIBIT 32.1


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


        In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of RPM Advantage.
(the "Registrant") for the period ended September 30, 2011, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, David R. Pressler, Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, 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, as amended; 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:   October 12, 2011


By:

/s/ DAVID R. PRESSLER


David R. Pressler
Chief Executive Officer
(principal executive officer)
#### Eugene A. BRADFORD, Appellant, v. Edna W. BRADFORD, Appellee.

No. 68-1097.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

May 6, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.