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
on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2012 of Skystar Bio-Pharmaceutical Company (the “Company”) as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Weibing Lu, 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 (15 U.S.C 78m
or 78o(d)); 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 14, 2012 | By: | /s/ Weibing Lu                     
|------------------------- | --- | -----------------------------------
|                          |     | Weibing Lu, Chief Executive Officer



A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906 has been provided to Skystar Bio-Pharmaceutical Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

BRIAN COHEN, 

Petitioner,

v.

PBPP, et al.,

Respondents

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

C.A. No. 06-181E

Judge McLaughlin

Magistrate Judge Baxter

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

I. RECOMMENDATION

It is respectfully recommended that Petitioner’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

(Docket No. 3) be denied and the case be dismissed without prejudice.

II. REPORT

When submitting a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, a petitioner is required to submit

an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such prisoner possesses that the person is unable

to pay such fees or give security therefor. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). In addition to the

aforementioned affidavit, a petitioner is further required to “submit a certified copy of the trust fund

account statement (or institutional equivalent) for the prisoner for the 6-month period immediately

preceding the filing of the complaint or notice of appeal, obtained from the appropriate official of

each prison at which the prisoner is or was confined.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2).

In this case, Petitioner has failed to submit a copy of his institutional account statement,

certified or otherwise. Because Petitioner has failed to comply with the statutory prerequisites for

proceeding In Forma Pauperis, Petitioner’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis should be denied

and the case dismissed without prejudice.

Case 1:06-cv-00181-SJM-SPB Document 4 Filed 08/24/06 Page 1 of 2
2

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, it is recommended that the Petitioner’s Motion to Proceed

In Forma Pauperis (Docket No. 3) be denied and the case dismissed without prejudice.

In accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C), and Rule

72.1.4(B) of the Local Rules for Magistrates, the parties are allowed ten (10) days from the date of

service to file objections to this report and recommendation. Any party opposing the objections

shall have seven (7) days from the date of service of objections to respond thereto. Failure to file

timely objections may constitute a waiver of any appellate rights.

Dated: August 23, 2006 By the Court:

S/ Susan Paradise Baxter

Susan Paradise Baxter

Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 1:06-cv-00181-SJM-SPB Document 4 Filed 08/24/06 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
INCLUDED IN SUCH REPORT.
</LEGEND>


<S>                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>         12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>     DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>          DEC-31-1999

<CASH>                            4,125
<SECURITIES>                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                    20,597
<ALLOWANCES>                       0
<INVENTORY>                        0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                 24,722
<PP&E>                        1,724,068
<DEPRECIATION>                  207,720
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                1,848,318
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>            68,982
<BONDS>                       1,080,452
<COMMON>                            176
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>              0
<PREFERRED>                          38
<OTHER-SE>                      312,701
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  1,848,318
<SALES>                         240,763
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                241,734
<CGS>                              0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                    84,096
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                 63,107
<LOSS-PROVISION>                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>               60,226
<INCOME-PRETAX>                  22,649
<INCOME-TAX>                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>              22,649
<DISCONTINUED>                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                   1,618
<CHANGES>                          0
<NET-INCOME>                     21,031
<EPS-BASIC>                      1.17
<EPS-DILUTED>                      1.16



</TABLE>
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

GREGORY ARIAS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND

PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY 

LICENSING BOARD,

Appellee.

No. 4D19-1254

[November 14, 2019]

Appeal from the State of Florida, Construction Industry Licensing 

Board; Keith O. Lawson II, Chair; L.T. Case No. 2019-03266.

Gregory Arias, Royal Palm Beach, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Marlene K. Stern, Senior 

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CIKLIN, GERBER and FORST, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Name of EmployeeFederal Highway Administration6300 Georgetown PikeMcLean, Virginia  22101

Date

Name of Employee

Title of Journal EmployeeJournal NameJournal AddressCity, State  Zip

Dear Journal Editor:

Attached please find the manuscript of the paper “[insert name of article]_________________”, for the [insert date and year] issue of the [insert journal name]. Unfortunately, as a Federal employee, I am precluded from signing any forms assigning copyright rights to any one entity.

Federal Government employees cannot copyright material prepared in the course of their employment, because work created by a Federal employee is the work of the United States Government and remains in the public domain, meaning no employee may assign an exclusive right to any one entity as the work is already in the public domain. Because the work is the public domain, that allows any entity to use the work equally without having specific granted rights. Because the Government does not own any copyright rights, there are no rights we can grant. As an employee of the U.S. Department of Transportation, I have no copyright interest to assign, and upon the direction of the Office of Chief Counsel at Federal Highway Administration am not permitted to sign the agreement. 

Although for the above reasons I am unable to assign any copyright to [insert the name of the journal], I do verify that to-date this article has not been published by any other publication. I do request and authorize you to publish the submitted article in accordance with your standard editorial policies. Although I cannot sign the requested agreement, I hope this letter will be sufficient authorization for your needs to enable you to consider my submission for publication in your [insert name of journal].

Many journal publishers in the United States accept the above statements as permission to publish technical papers written by employees of the U.S. Federal Government. We will not seek publication of this manuscript elsewhere before a decision is made by your editorial board.

If you have any additional questions, please contact the Federal Highway Administration attorney Anastasiya Sidorova at Anastasiya.Sidorova@dot.gov or 202-366-0662.

Thank you for your consideration of my submission.

Sincerely,

[Insert your name]

[Insert your title]Office of Research, Development, and Technology

# image1.jpg
#### John EDGAR, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 76-1859.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Feb. 21, 1978.

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Henry Prettyman and Frank B. Kes-sler, Asst. Public Defenders, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Richard P. Zaretsky, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed upon authority of *In the Interest of W. J. N.,*350 So.2d 119 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977) and *Doerr v. State,*348 So.2d 938 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977).

ALDERMAN, C. J., and DOWNEY and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.
**CERTIFICATIONS**
 
 
 
 I, Kevin
D. Johnson, certify that;
 
 (1) I
have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB/A of Snap2 Corporation;
 
 (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 small business issuer as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
 
 (4) The
small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) 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 small business issuer 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 small business issuer, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
 
 b)
Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’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
 
 c)
Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business
issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth quarter
in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably
likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over
financial reporting; and
 
 (5) The
small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of the internal control over financial reporting,
to the small business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of small
business issuer’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
 
 a) All
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the small business issuer’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 small business issuer’s internal control over
financial reporting.
 
 Date:  May 18,
2005
 
 
 /s/    
 Kevin D.
Johnson
 By:   
 Kevin D. Johnson
 Title: 
Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Varian, Inc. for the period ended
July 1, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date of this certification (the Report), the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Report fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Varian,
Inc.



|                                                       
|-------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: August 10, 2005                                 
|                                                       
|/s/ GARRY W. ROGERSON                                  
|Garry W. Rogerson President and Chief Executive Officer



A signed original of this written
statement as required by Section 906 has been provided to Varian, Inc. and will be retained by Varian, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Theodore I. FRY et al. v. Albert PICK CO., Inc.

No. 7504.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Feb. 9, 1937.

David H. Crowley, Edmund E. Shepherd, and Arthur T. Iverson, all of Lansing, Mich., for appellants.

Clark, Klein, Ferris & Cook, of Detroit, Mich., and Levinson, Becker, Peebles & Swiren, of Chicago, 111., for appellee.

Before HICKS, SIMONS, and ALLEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to stipulation of counsel, it is ordered that the appeal in this cause be and the same is dismissed without cost to either party.
II 

Calendar No. 599 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3474 

To redesignate the Hulls Cove Visitor Center at Acadia National Park as 

the ‘‘George J. Mitchell, Jr., Visitor Center’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 12, 2023 

Mr. KING (for himself and Ms. COLLINS) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources 

NOVEMBER 21, 2024 

Reported by Mr. MANCHIN, with amendments and an amendment to the title 

[Omit the parts struck through] 

A BILL 

To redesignate the Hulls Cove Visitor Center at Acadia National Park as the ‘‘George J. Mitchell, Jr., Visitor Center’’. 

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


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3474 RS

1 SECTION 1. REDESIGNATION OF THE HULLS COVE VISITOR 

2 CENTER AT ACADIA NATIONAL PARK AS THE 

3 GEORGE J. MITCHELL, JR., VISITOR CENTER. 

4 (a) REDESIGNATION.—The Hulls Cove Visitor Center 

5 at Acadia National Park located in Bar Harbor, Maine, 

6 or any successor to that visitor center that is constructed 

7 after the date of enactment of this Act and serves as the 

8 primary visitor center for Acadia National Park, shall be 

9 known and designated as the ‘‘George J. Mitchell, Jr., Vis10 itor Center’’. 

11 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg12 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

13 States to the visitor center referred to in subsection (a) 

14 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘George J. Mitch15 ell, Jr., Visitor Center’’. 

Amend the title so as to read: ‘‘A bill to redesignate 

the Hulls Cove Visitor Center at Acadia National Park 

as the George J. Mitchell Visitor Center.’’. 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with BILLS

DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 599 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3474 

A BILL 

To redesignate the Hulls Cove Visitor Center at 

Jr., Visitor Center’’. Acadia National Park as the ‘‘George J. Mitchell, 

NOVEMBER 21, 2024 

Reported with amendments and an amendment to the 

title 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 23.1
------------



                       Consent of Independent Auditors
                       -------------------------------


The Board of Directors
Urban Shopping Centers, Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements No.
333-35909 (Form S-8), No. 33-86778 (Form S-8), No. 33-96388 (Form S-8), No.
333-00334 (Form S-3), No. 333-35911 (Form S-3) and No. 333-63509 (Form S-3)
of Urban Shopping Centers, Inc. of our report dated February 5, 1999,
except as to note 12, which is as of March 1, 1999, relating to the
consolidated balance sheets of Urban Shopping Centers, Inc. and
consolidated partnerships as of December 31, 1998 and 1997, and the related
consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity and cash flows
and our report dated February 5, 1999 related to the financial statement
schedule for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31,
1998, which reports appear in or are incorporated by reference in the
annual report on Form 10-K of Urban Shopping Centers, Inc. for the year
ended December 31, 1998.






                                                   KPMG LLP                 




Chicago, Illinois
March 26, 1999
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 40864 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
AURELIO REYES

- NAVARRO , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:15

- CR

- 611

- 1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Aurelio Reyes

Navarro has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance
with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Reyes

- Navarro h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED March 27, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-40864 Document: 00513927032 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/27/2017No. 16

- 40864

2 nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave
to wit hdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 16-40864 Document: 00513927032 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/27/2017
UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20549

 

FORM N-CSRS

 

Investment Company Act file number  811-2786

 

DWS High Income Series

 (Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Charter)

 

345 Park Avenue

New York, NY 10154-0004

 (Address of principal executive offices)             (Zip code)

 

Registrant’s Telephone Number, including Area Code: (212) 454-7190

 

Paul Schubert

345 Park Avenue

New York, NY 10154-0004

(Name and Address of Agent for Service)

 

| Date of fiscal year end: | 9/30 |
|--------------------------|------|

 

| Date of reporting period: | 03/31/08 |
|---------------------------|----------|

 

 

**ITEM 1.**           **REPORT TO STOCKHOLDERS**

 

 

----
#### 18925 COLLINS AVENUE CORPORATION d/b/a The Beachcomber Motel, et al., Petitioners, v. William Daniel MEYER, Jr., and the Industrial Relations Commission, Respondents.

No. 39619.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 30, 1970.

Rehearing Denied July 29, 1970.

Certiorari denied.

ERVIN, C. J., and ROBERTS, DREW, THORNAL and BOYD, JJ., concur.
255 La. 471

#### John E. DOVE, Sr., et ux. v. Joseph P. MESSINA et al.

No. 50339.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 27, 1970.

In re: Joseph P. Messina and The Travelers Insurance Company applying for cer-tiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of Pointe Coupee. 230 So.2d 615.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal we find no error of law in its judgment.
#### Abe MURAVCHICK and Pauline Muravchick, Appellants, v. UNITED BONDING INSURANCE COMPANY, an Indiana corporation, Appellee.

No. 70-206.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 22, 1970.

*180Miller & Schwartz, Hollywood, for appellants.

Moore, Welbaum, Zook & Jones, Miami, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and BARK-DULL and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The appellants brought a cross-claim against co-defendant, United Bonding Insurance Company. The bonding company had entered into a contractor’s payment bond for construction by a lessee upon appellants’ property. Appellants’ claim alleged that as a result of the failure of the bonding company to promptly pay the claims of certain lienors, the construction mortgage was foreclosed and appellants lost their equity in the property. The trial court dismissed the cross-claim and this appeal followed.

Appellants agree that they have no claim under the bond, but they urge that because they were obligees under the bond, the bonding company owed them a duty to act promptly and in good faith to pay lienors on the property. It is further alleged that the bonding company breached this duty to the damage of the appellants.

The only damage alleged because of the breach of the duty claimed is in paragraph six of the cross-claim which reads as follows:

> ******

> “(6) In reliance upon the above described Bonds being executed and delivered by the Cross-Defendant to the Cross-Claimants, Cross-Claimants joined in the execution of the temporary construction mortgage encumbering the Property, and, as a result of the breaches and defaults under the said Bonds by the Cross-Defendant, the said temporary construction mortgage was not satisfied at its maturity and the equity of the Cross-Claimants in the Property has been foreclosed.”

We concur in the holding of the trial court that the cross-claim failed to state a cause of action. When a contract is designed solely for the benefit of the parties thereto, third persons cannot maintain an action thereon, even though such third persons might derive some incidental or consequential benefit from its enforcement. American Surety Co. of New York v. Smith, 100 Fla. 1012, 130 So. 440 (1930).

Affirmed.

BARKDULL, J., dissents.
#### JAYE-RON CORPORATION, a Florida Corporation, Appellant, v. Nathan POZIN and Jean Pozin, and Sol Pozin and Mildred Pozin, Appellees.

No. L-225.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 23, 1970.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 26, 1970.

Canto & Salter, Gainesville, for appellant.

Richard J. Wilson and Margaret Kathleen Wright, Gainesville, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

This cause having been orally argued before the Court, the briefs and record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and the appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the summary judgment of the lower court appealed from herein is affirmed.

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and WIGGINTON and RAWLS, JJ., concur.