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






CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002






In
connection with the Quarterly Report of The Hartcourt Companies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended February 29, 2008 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we,
Victor Zhou and Yungeng Hu, Chief Executive Officer, and President and Chief
Financial Officer, respectively, of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:




(1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




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




Dated:
      April 10, 2008
            By:
            /s/
      Victor ZhouVictor
      Zhou
              Chief
      Executive Officer
              
              /s/
      Yungeng Hu
              Yungeng
      Hu
              President
      & Chief Financial Officer




A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to The Hartcourt Companies, Inc. and will be retained by the Company
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
No. 11828.

#### The Northern Ohio Traction & Light Co. *v.*Yesteramski.

Decided October 12, 1909.

Error to Circuit Court of Portage county.

*Messrs. Rogers, Rowley & Rockwell*and *Mr. A. S. Cole,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. J. J.*
      *498
      *McCormick*and *Mr. W. J. Beckley,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Crew, C. J., Summers, Spear, Davis and Si-iauck, JJ., concur.
**EXHIBIT
      3.5**





**ARTICLES
      OF AMENDMENT**


**TO
      THE ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION OF**


**THE
      HARTCOURT COMPANIES, INC.**




Pursuant
      to the provisions of section 16-10a-1001 and 16-10a-1006 of the Utah Revised
      Business Corporation Act, the undersigned corporation hereby adopts the
      following Articles of Amendments to its Articles of Incorporation.





FIRST:
      The name of the corporation is The Hartcourt Companies, Inc.





SECOND:
      The following amendment to the Articles of Incorporation was duly adopted by
      the
      corporation’s shareholders on November 23, 2005 at the corporation’s annual
      meeting of shareholders. At that time, there were 195,896,865 shares of Common
      Stock of the Company which were entitled to vote on such amendment, with
      104,810,254 votes indisputably represented at such meeting of shareholders.
      104,275,918 shares were voted in favor of the amendment, with 534,336 were
      voted
      against the amendment. The number of votes cast in favor of the amendment was
      sufficient for approval of this amendment.





The
      amendment is as follows:





Article
      IV


Stock





“The
      total number of shares which the corporation shall have the authority to issue
      is 434,999,000, consisting of 424,999,000 shares of common stock, par value
      US$0.001 per share, and 10,000,000 shares of Class A Preferred Stock, having
      a
      par value of US$0.01 per share (the “Class A Preferred Stock”).”





IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned officer having been thereto duly authorized,
      has executed the foregoing Articles of Amendment for the corporation this
      24 th day of
      November, 2005.




THE
      HARTCOURT COMPANIES, INC.






/s/
      Carrie Hartwick


Carrie
      Hartwick, President and Chief Executive Officer
#### Jerry SAUNDERS, Relator, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections, State of Florida, Respondent.

No. 71-519.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 8, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Habeas corpus dismissed.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1847 Considered and Passed Senate (CPS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1847

    To provide for the redesignation of the Asia-Pacific Center for 
   Security Studies as the Daniel K. Inouye Asia-Pacific Center for 
                           Security Studies.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           December 17, 2013

Ms. Hirono (for herself, Mr. Chambliss, and Mr. Schatz) introduced the 
following bill; which was read twice, considered, read the third time, 
                               and passed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To provide for the redesignation of the Asia-Pacific Center for 
   Security Studies as the Daniel K. Inouye Asia-Pacific Center for 
                           Security Studies.

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

SECTION 1. REDESIGNATION OF THE ASIA-PACIFIC CENTER FOR SECURITY 
              STUDIES AS THE DANIEL K. INOUYE ASIA-PACIFIC CENTER FOR 
              SECURITY STUDIES.

    (a) Redesignation.--The Department of Defense regional center for 
security studies known as the Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies 
is hereby renamed the ``Daniel K. Inouye Asia-Pacific Center for 
Security Studies''.
    (b) Conforming Amendments.--
            (1) Reference to regional centers for security studies.--
        Subparagraph (B) of section 184(b)(2) of title 10, United 
        States Code, is amended to read as follows:
                    ``(B) The Daniel K. Inouye Asia-Pacific Center for 
                Security Studies.''.
            (2) Acceptance of gifts and donations.--Subparagraph (B) of 
        section 2611(a)(2) of such title is amended to read as follows:
                    ``(B) The Daniel K. Inouye Asia-Pacific Center for 
                Security Studies.''.
    (c) References.--Any reference to the Department of Defense Asia-
Pacific Center for Security Studies in any law, regulation, map, 
document, record, or other paper of the United States shall be deemed 
to be a reference to the Daniel K. Inouye Asia-Pacific Center for 
Security Studies.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF UROQUEST MEDICAL CORPORATION,
INCLUDING THE NOTES THERETO, OF JUNE 30, 1997 AND FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE
30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                      12,040,637
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,556,119
<ALLOWANCES>                                    60,000
<INVENTORY>                                  2,814,423
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            17,738,119
<PP&E>                                       6,250,083
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,800,623
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              34,306,695
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,497,237
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        11,845
<OTHER-SE>                                  28,428,687
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                34,306,695
<SALES>                                      7,660,378
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,660,378
<CGS>                                        4,062,087
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,740,797
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              98,408
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,946,701)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    82,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,028,701)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,028,701)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.17)
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

I, Paul J.B, Murphy, III, as Chief ExecutiveOfficer of New World Restaurant Group, Inc. (the “Company”), certify, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)          the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form10-Q for the period ended September 28, 2004, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)          the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 
| November 11, 2004 | By:                         | /s/ PAUL J. B. MURPHY, III |
|-------------------|-----------------------------|----------------------------|
|              | Paul J. B. Murphy, III      |
|              | Chief Executive Officer     |
|              | Principal Executive Officer |

 

----
From: Szabo, Aaron [mailto:Aaron_L_Szabo@omb.eop.gov]

Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 2:36 PM

To: Nizich, Sharon

Cc: Jordan, Scott; Eck, Janet; Barnett, Keith; VanLare, Paula

Subject: Re: EO 12866_Brick Clay 2060_AP69 Final Submittal

Sharon,

You can upload the documents to ROCIS. Please let me know when they have been uploaded. 

Thank you very much. 

From: Nizich, Sharon

Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 12:57 PM

To: 'Aaron_L_Szabo@omb.eop.gov'

Cc: Jordan, Scott; Eck, Janet; Barnett, Keith; VanLare, Paula

Subject: EO 12866_Brick Clay 2060_AP69 Final Submittal

Hello AaronPlease find attached the final submittal for ROCIS along with the compare version between 

08/24/2015 version and today, for subject rule.

Also note I am sending you the compare version of the RIA, between the 08/24/2015 submittal to 

you, and the final we completed today. 

Thank you.

Sharon Nizich

Environmental Engineer

U.S. EPA/OAR/OAQPS

Sector Policies and Programs Division (SPPD)

109 TW Alexander Dr. (D243-04)

RTP, NC 27711

(919) 541-2825 

<< E O 12866_Brick Clay 2060-AP69 RIA Final_Compare_2015 09 23.docx>>

<< E O 12866_Brick Clay 2060-AP69 Compare_20150923.docx>>

<< E O 12866_Brick Clay 2060-AP69_ROCIS Clean Copy 9 23 2015.docx>>
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 21

- 3068

, 21

- 3205 & 21

- 3243

PJM POWER PROVISERS GROUP

, Petitioner in 21

- 3068

v.

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

ELECTRIC POWER SUPPLY ASSOCIATION

, Petitioner in 21

- 3205

PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION ;

PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF OHIO,

Petiti oner s in 21

- 3243

( Agency No. ER21

- 2582

- 000 )

To: Clerk

Motion by Intervenor Respondent Buckeye Power Inc to Amend

Opinion dated December 1, 2023.

____________________ __ ___________ORDER________________________________

The foregoing motion is granted at the direction of the Court. The opinion will be

amended contemporaneously with this order. As the changes to the opinion are clerical

in nature, the judgment is unaffected and remains as originally filed.

For the Court

,

Patricia S. Dodszuweit, Clerk

Dated: January 24, 2024

k r/ cc : All Counsel of Record
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 140 (Thursday, July 21, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 43659]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-18635]

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

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

TIME AND DATE: Wednesday, July 27, 2011; 11 a.m.-12 p.m.

PLACE: Hearing Room 420, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East West Highway, 
Bethesda, Maryland.

STATUS: Closed to the Public.

Matter To Be Considered: 

Compliance Status Report

    The Commission staff will brief the Commission on the status of 
compliance matters.
    For a recorded message containing the latest agenda information, 
call (301) 504-7948.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Todd A. Stevenson, Office of the 
Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West 
Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 504-7923.

    Dated: July 19, 2011.
Todd A Stevenson,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-18635 Filed 7-19-11; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
```
#### John Hamilton HOOVER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 67-862.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

June 18, 1968.

Rehearing Denied July 24, 1968.

*96Harry W. Prebish, Richard M. Gale, Miami, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Jesse J. McCrary, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, C. J., and BARKDULL and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

After a non-jury trial, the appellant was found guilty of entering without breaking into a building with the intent to commit a felony therein, to-wit, aggravated assault. He appeals and contends that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the trial court’s finding of guilt. The evidence is conflicting but it is a fundamental principle that an appellate court does not sit as the trier of fact. Williams v. Smelt, Fla.1955, 83 So.2d 1. Where there are conflicts in the evidence in a non-jury trial, it is within the province of the trial judge to reject any testimony he finds to be untrue and to accept and rely upon that which he finds to be worthy of belief. Eizenman v. State, Fla.App.1961, 132 So.2d 763.

There is an additional reason to affirm this case. There were submitted into evidence in the trial below two photographs of some of the people involved in this matter. An essential issue determined by the trial judge may have been whether the parties were forced at gun point to pose for the photographs; or whether they freely and voluntarily consented to the photographs. The appellant has not brought these photographs up in the record on appeal. Generally, the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a verdict cannot be considered on appeal where the exhibits introduced are not made a part of the record. Steele v. State, 85 Fla. 57, 95 So. 299 (1923); Belfield v. Lochner, Fla.App. 1964, 162 So.2d 668. It is axiomatic that an Appellate Court will not reverse a finding of fact by the lower court unless the error is patent on the record. Mixon v. State, Fla.1951, 54 So.2d 190. For the above and foregoing reasons the verdict herein appealed be and the same is hereby

Affirmed.
An official website of the United States government                

----

end of header

Census.govNewsroom

# Newsroom Archive

Skip left menu navigation                          - About the Newsroom
                          - Facts for Features
                          - **News Releases**
                          - Press Kits
                          - Tip Sheets

## Mark E. Wallace

### Chief of Service Sector Statistics DivisionU.S. Census Bureau

Mark E. Wallace, Chief of Service Sector Statistics Division at the U.S. Census Bureau, oversees several major Economic Census and current surveys programs.  He is responsible for formulating, planning, and directing economic statistics programs covering the non goods producing sectors of the economy.  These programs cover over 500 North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) industries and many of the fastest growing sectors of the economy including wholesale and retail trade, transportation, information, real estate and rental and leasing, as well as nine additional service sectors and include several principal economic indicators, many annual surveys, myriad economic census programs, as well as special studies and research.

CONNECT WITH US**********

                            - Information Quality
                            - Data Linkage Infrastructure
                            - Data Protection and Privacy Policy
                            - Accessibility
                            - FOIA
                            - Inspector General
                            - No FEAR Act
                            - U.S. Department of Commerce
                            - USA.gov

----

Measuring America's People, Places, and Economy

Is this page helpful?
YesNo

NO THANKS

255 characters maximum255 characters maximum reached

Thank you for your feedback.Comments or suggestions? 

PIO@census.gov
Table 7.  Homeownership Rates by Age of Householder:  First Quarter 2002 and 2001


                              First      First    Standard   Standard
Age of householder           Quarter    Quarter   error on   error on
                                 2002       2001  2002 rate difference

United States..............      67.8       67.5        0.1        0.2

    Under 25 years.........      22.9       21.0        0.5        0.8
    25 to 29 years.........      39.3       37.3        0.6        0.8
    30 to 34 years.........      54.2       55.3        0.5        0.8
    35 to 39 years.........      65.1       65.2        0.5        0.7
    40 to 44 years.........      71.9       70.8        0.4        0.6
    45 to 49 years.........      74.2       74.9        0.4        0.6
    50 to 54 years.........      77.9       78.3        0.4        0.6
    55 to 59 years.........      81.0       80.1        0.5        0.7
    60 to 64 years.........      80.6       81.7        0.5        0.8
    65 to 69 years.........      83.4       82.4        0.5        0.8
    70 to 74 years.........      83.0       83.9        0.5        0.8
    75 years and over......      78.5       78.1        0.4        0.6

      Under 35 years.......      41.0       40.4        0.3        0.5
      35 to 44 years.......      68.6       68.1        0.3        0.5
      45 to 54 years.......      76.0       76.5        0.3        0.5
      55 to 64 years.......      80.8       80.8        0.3        0.5
      65 years and over....      80.9       80.7        0.3        0.4
#### Edward Leary DOWNS v. STATE.

No. 36253.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 1967.

Habeas corpus denied without opinion.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

GORDON F. DUGGER, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D19-1004

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

___________________________________)

Opinion filed October 16, 2019.

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P.

9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court 

for Polk County; J. Kevin Abdoney, 

Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See McDonald v. State, 133 So. 3d 530 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013); 

Hughes v. State, 22 So. 3d 132 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); Waiter v. State, 965 So. 2d 861 

(Fla. 2d DCA 2007); Shaw v. State, 780 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Johnson v. 

State, 917 So. 2d 1011 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Martell v. State, 676 So. 2d 1030 (Fla. 3d 

DCA 1996).

KHOUZAM, C.J., and CASANUEVA and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
#### Yvette FARMER, a minor by and through her next friend Roy F. Farmer, et al., Appellants, v. B. F. GOODRICH COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Appellee.

No. 70-433.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Sept. 22, 1971.

*594Rood & Hapner, and David A. Maney, Tampa, for appellants.

John W. Boult, of Fowler, White, Gillen, Humkey, Kinney & Boggs, P. A., Tampa, for appellee.

HOBSON, Judge.

Appellants appeal a final judgment entered against them for damages suffered due to appellee’s breach of warranty.

The sole point on appeal is whether or not it is reversible error to admit into evidence a pamphlet which is admittedly hearsay.

We have carefully reviewed the record and it is quite clear that even if the admission of the pamphlet was error it was harmless error. Two expert witnesses testified independently that under-inflation or overloading, or both, caused the tire in question to blow out and that there was no manufacturing defect in the tire. These two experts were produced by the appellee, whose attorney had used the pamphlet. The only other expert, who was the appellants’ witness, could not testify as to what caused the tire to blow out nor whether there was a manufacturing defect.

It is apparent that the pamphlet was merely cumulative of the evidence presented to the jury by the experts and clearly falls within Florida Statute § 59.041, F.S.A., commonly known as the harmless error statute.

For the foregoing reasons the judgment appealed is affirmed.

Affirmed.

PIERCE, C. J., and MANN, J., concur.
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 22-40078

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Elizandro Payan-Martinez, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:19-CR-171-1

Before Stewart, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Elizandro PayanMartinez 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). Payan-Martinez has filed a response. The record 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 7, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-40078 Document: 00516463380 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/07/2022
No. 22-40078

2

is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of PayanMartinez’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline 

to consider the claims without prejudice to collateral review. See United 

States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014).

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the 

record reflected therein, as well as Payan-Martinez’s response. We concur 

with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for 

appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is 

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and 

the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

Case: 22-40078 Document: 00516463380 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/07/2022
#### Thomas J. FOWLER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-88.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 28, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.