alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.1



Certification of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



I, Thomas A. Franza, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge, Amendment No. 1 to the quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of
Comarco, Inc. for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2004 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 such Amendment No. 1 to the quarterly report on
Form 10-Q/A fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Comarco, Inc. to which it relates.



The foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as part of the accompanying Amendment No. 1 to the quarterly report on Form
10-Q/A. A signed original of this statement has been provided to Comarco, Inc. and will be retained by Comarco, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



|               |  |                        
|-------------- |  | -----------------------
|April 11, 2005 |  | /s/ Thomas A. Franza   
|               |  | Thomas A. Franza       
|               |  | Chief Executive Officer
#### Dominick LOPRINCE v. STATE of Florida.

No. 38430.

Supreme Court of Florida.

April 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 218 So.2d 212.
#### Charles Ray ARNOLD, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-484.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Nov. 20, 1969.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 5, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS EASTLAND , TEXAS JUDGMENT

Jose Gonzalez
, * From the 299 th District Court of Travis County, Trial Court No. D

- 1

- DC

- 07

- 301684

.

Vs. No. 11

- 12

- 00027

- CR * January 9, 2014

The State of Texas, * Memorandum Opinion by Wright, C.J

. (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., Willson , J. , and Bailey, J. )

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is no error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s opinion, the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
#### James R. MORROW, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 77-421.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Jan. 13, 1978.

Jack 0. Johnson, Public Defender, Bar-tow, and Stephen 0. Rushing, Asst. Public Defender, Tampa, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and C. Marie King, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed, but this case is remanded for resentencing of appellant. The present sentence does *960not specifically set forth the period of credit time to be allowed as required by Section 921.161(1), Florida Statutes (1975); *Brooks v. State,*349 So.2d 794 (Fla.2d DCA 1977). Moreover, the phrase “at hard labor” in the sentence is improper. *Brooks v. State, supra.*The appellant does not have to be present at resentencing.

HOBSON, A. C. J., and SCHEB and OTT, JJ., concur.
#### H. T. MANGURIAN, Jr., Appellant, v. David REID et al., Appellees.

No. 77-751.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Sept. 6, 1977.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 19, 1977.

*786Gerry L. Dondanville, of Spear, Deuschle & Curran, P. A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

L. M. “Luke” Taylor, North Palm Beach, for appellee-David Reid.

H. Michael Easley, of Cone, Owen, Wagner, Nugent, Johnson & McKeown, P. A., West Palm Beach, for appellee-Allen C. Clark.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ALDERMAN, C. J., and DAUKSCH, J., concur.

ANSTEAD, J., dissents with opinion.

ANSTEAD, Judge,

dissenting:

While the appellant-taxpayer’s action challenging the 1975 appraised valuation of his property by the appellee-property appraiser was pending, the appellant sought leave to amend so as to also challenge the 1976 appraisal. Leave to amend was denied. At the time the action was not even at issue. I can see no reason why the same parties should not be able to litigate the 1975 and 1976 valuation in the same lawsuit when the initial action is not even at issue and no prejudice would accrue to the appel-lee. With the case in the posture it was in a second lawsuit would probably have been consolidated with the first anyway. I would reverse the trial court’s order denying leave to amend.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL
OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Hong Mei Ma, the Chief Executive Officer of Vibe
Ventures Inc. (the "Company") hereby certifies, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his or her knowledge, the
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended October 31, 2010, fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the
information contained in the Annual Report on Form 10-K, as amended,
fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.

Date: February 14, 2011

/s/ Hong Mei Ma
Hong Mei Ma
Chief Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 231 (Tuesday, December 2, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 63702]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-31484]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Project No. 1982-017]


Northern States Power Company; Notice of Meeting to Discuss a 
Settlement Process for Relicensing Northern States Power Company's 
Lower Chippewa River Hydroelectric Projects

November 25, 1997.
    On December 3, at 1:00 p.m. Central Standard Time, Commission staff 
from the Office of Hydropower Licensing will attend a meeting for the 
proposed relicensing of the Holcombe Hydroelectric Project and Northern 
States Power Company's other lower Chippewa River hydroelectric 
projects. The meeting will be held at Northern States Power Company's 
Western Avenue Service Center, located at 1400 Western Avenue in Eau 
Claire, WI.
    The purpose of this meeting is to discuss a settlement process and 
to organize a negotiation team.
    For further information, please contact Mark Pawlowski at (202) 
219-2795, or Lloyd Everhart at 715-839-2692.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-31484 Filed 12-1-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATIONS 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   Kama Resources Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended October 31, 2014 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Dayong Sun, Principal Executive Officer
and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge 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: February 13, 2015

By: /s/ Dayong Sun

Name: Dayong Sun

Title: Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer

----------------------------------------------------------
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 232 (Wednesday, December 3, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 63931]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-31654]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP96-387-004]


Williams Natural Gas Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC 
Gas Tariff

November 26, 1997.
    Take notice that on November 21, 1997, Williams Natural Gas Company 
(WNG) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second 
Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets to be effective 
November 1, 1997:

Substitute First Revised Sheet Nos. 103 and 112
Second Substitute First Revised Sheet No. 229B

    WNG states that this filing is being made to comply with the 
October 22, 1997, order on rehearing in Docket No. RP96-387-002. WNG 
was required to file within 30 days of the date of issuance of the 
order revised tariff sheets to: (1) continue the existing 5% tolerance 
level at receipt points, and (2) continue the existing tariff provision 
under Rate Schedules TSS and STS that the \1/3\-\2/3\ ratio of flowing 
supplies to storage withdrawals applies only when deliveries are at the 
MDTQ.
    WNG states that a copy of its filing was served on all participants 
listed on the service list maintained by the Commission in the docket 
referenced above and on all jurisdictional customers and interested 
state commissions.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, 
Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed as 
provided in Section 154.210 of the Commissions Regulations. Protests 
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate 
action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to 
the proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission 
and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-31654 Filed 12-2-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
           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 of Cox
Communications, Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended September 30, 2003, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission as of the date hereof, I,
James O. Robbins, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:

         (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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.



                                           /s/ James O. Robbins
                                           ------------------------------------
                                           Name: James O. Robbins
                                           Title: President and Chief Executive
                                           Officer
                                           Date: November 11, 2003

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 or other
documentation 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 Cox Communications, Inc.
and will be retained by Cox Communications, Inc. and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification "accompanies" the quarterly report on Form 10-Q to which it
relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, and is
not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of Cox Communications, Inc.
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
on Form 10-Q, irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in
such filing).
OFFICE QF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

GROVER SELLERS 

#rTORNEY GENERAL 

Bonorable 9. I!. 

CountT Auditor 

1or c;ounty 

3 A lemo, Texar 

D8ar sir: 

AUSTIN 

557 

he of youx letter oi 

this departamnt: 

18 and Company 

6 that R party 

or reoor4 In th8 

J rhatl pay the reorb f& tide. 

n apparfdnt oonflict iq the Statof the oourt in the above 

“r . . .‘) 
55s 

i?oaorable s..li. plller', pa@ e 

The applloabls part of Artlole S9Sf2, Revised Qlvll 

statutes, alaa ret forth in your lettar, ia in the.followlng 

laneuager 

a . l . . No oounty olerk shall be oompelled 

to file or reoord any i.nstrumnt of writing permlttsd or required by law to b0 reoordod until 

the paent or tender of paym65t or all 10gal 

fe88 tot suoh ffling or reoor&lag bar b0.n m&o. 

Notihg JbenLn shall be held to lnoldo paper8 

ar~lnatrument8 ffled or moomlwl Ln aultc pscdl~ 

in the oounty oourt." 

Thla departmat, in an o loion n54pr9d in 1931 ad 

again in 1939 held that it 1s the P uty oi the oounty olerk to 

ohargo and oolleot th0 logal few in f'ull bofora rooomllng $+ 

rtrum6nts left nith the olerk f0r that purp000. A oopy ai tho 

.lattor opiplon, b0Icy O-93@, approved Doeomber lS, 1939, and 

oltittg tbs rormer oplnioa Ie h0&th onolomod. 

s6otloa s of AXtid.9 SQl.8e. VorElon'L maetated Qlvll 

atatutas, oq2rmaa~~srkes it tb duty ot all ofri06ra to ehar60 

aml oolloot +n the faanmr authorleed by law all feoa ad4 om- 

~LmaIonr whioh are peralttod by law ~MI be asseaebd nnd oollsoto&tor all Oifioial aenlco per~ommd by .t&om, 

.?he languagcl wed. by the. oourt 15 the ~aso oltod in 

your letter do00 not oonfllot dth tho duty Lslpoaod by law 

qpon tho oountr offiolalr. In t&p oame the deed la puemtlon 

wan rii04 with ard6E6*Qta by the Qlimk for 3FWJoraation. 9?h0 

aour-d that the purohassr ra(r oharwd with notim of Its 

oriatenos by.reaum OS 'tho ?lli~, aotwlthrtandlng the fallum of the olerk to enter It upon th0 deed reoorde of the 

00unty. 

It might readily bs aurmia0d that the party slalaing 

title a0 lM00~nt pumhaesr of th0 lslld there iarolred was attaoking the validSty of th0 d-6 on the ground 'that tb reCOrdbIg fee had not beer paid. ~b0 court was apparently diepoalng of th1.a contention by the language sot forth in your 

letter a0 above stated, having in mind doubtlrrse ~rtlal0 6632 

whlah providea that when suah lmtrglaent is delivered to the 

Clerk of the proper aounty to be reoorded same shall take 0fteat and be valid aa to all subsequcmt purohecsers for a valuable aonslderatfon without notioo. 
559 

Undor~tha profialoao of Art1010 6596, Rerlmd Clril 

gtatuteo or Toxaa, l tery 15etnam5t authoritod to bo roqwdod 

is conaldawd as reoorded frofi the time it warn dopoaltob for 

rtloofl. 

AnmweriIq yous question it is t!!e opinion of thlo 

department that there is 50 duty impocod upon the oounty olork 

to aooopt a5d IUe a5 lnstzqmt authorlzod to bo rUe& 15 tho 

county olork*8 offloo UYO whew6 eamm is aoaompanlad by paynmt or t45dor of payment OS the proper statutory foot authorlsod to be Obarged theroior. 

Yourr! rory tmly
#### Beatrice COLLINS v. Joseph GERACE et al.

No. 8820.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

March 14, 1978.

Barbara Hausman-Smith, New Orleans Legal Assistance Corp., New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellant.

James A. Piper, James A. McGraw, Baton Rouge, for defendants-appellees.

Before REDMANN, LEMMON and GU-LOTTA, JJ.

*836REDMANN, Judge.

Appellant’s complaint is that, on the form for the decision of the unemployment compensation appeals referee, (1) the type size of the notice, at the top of the form, that appeal must be taken in ten days is so small that it does not effectively constitute notice; and (2) that a notice at the bottom of the form, that claimant desiring to exercise further appeal rights should continue to file “your claim for weekly benefits” was defective in that the quoted words were not reproduced in the duplicating process'. Appellant argues she did not have notice of the ten-day limit; and that therefore her appeal was improperly dismissed as untimely-

We affirm the dismissal for untimeliness. The ten-day limitation is not in itself unreasonable because the claim is for weekly sustenance; and, if notice other than from the statute itself is due, the notice was quite explicit in a type legible by the unaided eye. (The type size displays 15 characters in the width occupied by ten characters from the typewriter used on the notice.)

Affirmed.

LEMMON, J., assigns additional reasons.

GULOTTA, J., dissents.

LEMMON, Judge,

assigning additional reasons.

Arguably, in administrative proceedings, where the claimant is not usually represented by counsel and is not familiar with requirements of law, special efforts should be made by the agency at every critical stage to notify the claimant of his rights. But the notice procedure in this case, while subject to improvement, was reasonably sufficient to inform the unrepresented claimant that she had to appeal within ten days. Furthermore, if she was not clearly informed of her appeal rights, the very clear decision of the referee that her claim was denied should have prompted her to inquire as to further procedures for relief.

GULOTTA, Judge,

dissenting.

I dissent from the majority opinion affirming the dismissal for untimeliness. The smaller-than-usual print on the almost illegible copy explaining the necessity of taking an appeal from the decision of the appeals referee within 10 days is not sufficiently eye-catching to constitute notice. The claimant in this case is a maid and probably untrained in the thorough reading and in the understanding of quasi-judicial documents. The eye-catching “FINDINGS OF FACT” are located in a prominent place on the document but the smaller-type instructions on appeal rights are not.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 233 (Thursday, December 4, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 64215]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-31765]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP97-275-010]


Northern Natural Gas Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC 
Gas Tariff

November 28, 1997.
    Take notice that on November 25, 1997, Northern Natural Gas Company 
(Northern), tendered for filing to become part of Northern's FERC Gas 
Tariff, Fifth Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheet, with an 
effective date of December 1, 1997:

Substitute Sixth Revised Sheet No. 54

    On November 21, 1997, Northern filed tariff sheets to revise 
Mainline fuel retention percentages and the unaccounted for (UAF) 
percentage on Northern's system to be effective from December 1, 1997 
through May 31, 1998, as agreed to at the settlement conference held on 
November 13, 1997, before Settlement Judge H. Peter Young. In this 
November 21, 1997, filing, Northern correctly stated all fuel 
percentages on Sheet Nos. 61-64, as agreed to by the active parties 
(the Parties) in these dockets at the settlement conference. However, 
Northern inadvertently failed to revise the Market Area fuel percentage 
on Sheet No. 54 to 1.23%. The reason for the instant filing is to 
correctly reflect the Market Area fuel percentage on sheet No. 54 as 
1.23%.
    Northern states that copies of the filing were served upon 
Northern's customers and interested State Commissions.
    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 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. All 
protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken in this proceeding, but will not serve 
to make protestant a party to the proceeding. Copies of this filing are 
on file with the Commission and are available for inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-31765 Filed 12-3-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


           In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Colonial
  Commercial Corp. (the "Company") for the three and nine months ended September
  30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
  hereof (the "report"), I, James W. Stewart, Chief Financial Officer of the
  Company, certify, pursuant to section 18 U.S.C. 1350 as adopted pursuant to
  section 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.

  By:  /S/ JAMES W. STEWART
       ---------------------

  Name:  JAMES W. STEWART
              Chief Financial Officer

  November 14, 2003
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Joseph DePaulo, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this
report on Form 10-K of SLM Student Loan Trust 2010-2 (the Exchange Act periodic reports);

2. Based on my
knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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, all of the
distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required under this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer
and administrator have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreement and administration agreement, as applicable, in all material respects; and

5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for
asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report.
Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K. In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by Great Lakes Education Loan Services,
Inc., as subservicer, Nelnet Servicing LLC, as subservicer and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as indenture trustee.

Date:
March 29, 2013



|                                                                     
|---------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ JOSEPH DEPAULO                                                   
|Joseph DePaulo                                                       
|President and Chief Financial Officer (Senior Securitization Officer)
|SLM Funding LLC