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 this Quarterly Report of WTTJ Corp, on Form 10-Q for the Quarter ending June 30, 2015 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kris Kottmeier, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (1) Such Annual Report on Form 10-Q for the six months ending June 30, 2015, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and June 30, 2015 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of WTTJ Corp.  July 27, 2015By:/s/ Kris KottmeierKris KottmeierChairman, President and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)
#### State of Missouri, Respondent, *vs.*Jesse Gabhart, Appellant.

1. *Practice*— Supreme *Court*— No *appeal etc.*— Where the record of a case brought up from a lower court shows no allowance of an appeal or writ of error, it will be stricken from the docket.

*Appeal from Wayne Circuit Court.**

Chapman, for Appellant.

*Attorney-General Baker*and *G. H. Crumb,*for Respondent.

Adams, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an indictment for burglary and larceny. Erom the record it appears the defendant plead guilty and was sentenced to three years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The case is on the docket as an appeal from Wayne Circuit Court. But the record does not show that any appeal was applied for or allowed, and there being no writ of error, the case is here without any authority and must be struck from the docket.

Judge Wagner concurs. Judge Bliss absent.
#### Charles F. LINDSAY, Appellant, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation, doing business in Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-1412.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 19, 1972.

Byrd V. Duke, Jr., Miami, for appellant.

Underwood, Gillis & Karcher, Miami, for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and PEARSON and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed upon the authority of Cia. Ecuatoriana de Aviacion, C.A. v. U. S. and Overseas Corp., Fla.App.1962, 144 So.2d 338.
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 34

To amend title 38, United States Code, to extend eligibility for burial allowance to certain additional veterans and to increase the burial plot allowance for veterans from $150 to $300.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 5, 1993

Mr. GILMAN (for himself and Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA) introduced the following

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs

A BILL

To amend title 38, United States Code, to extend eligibility

for burial allowance to certain additional veterans and

to increase the burial plot allowance for veterans from

$150 to $300.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Veterans’ Burial Bene5 fits Act of 1993’’.

6 SEC. 2. ELIGIBILITY FOR BURIAL ALLOWANCE.

7 Subsection (a) of section 902 of title 38, United

8 States Code, is amended to read as follows:
2

HR 34 IH

1 ‘‘(a) Where a veteran dies—

2 ‘‘(1) of a service-connected disability; or

3 ‘‘(2) who was—

4 ‘‘(A) a veteran of any war;

5 ‘‘(B) discharged from the active military,

6 naval, or air service for a disability incurred or

7 aggravated in line of duty; or

8 ‘‘(C) in receipt of (or but for the receipt of

9 retirement pay would have been entitled to) dis10 ability compensation;

11 the Secretary, in the Secretary’s discretion, having due re12 gard to the circumstances in each case, may pay a sum

13 not exceeding $400 to such person as the Secretary pre14 scribes to cover the burial and funeral expenses of the de15 ceased veteran and the expense of preparing the body and

16 transporting it to the place of burial. For the purpose of

17 this subsection, the term ‘veteran’ includes a person who

18 died during a period deemed to be active military, naval,

19 or air service under section 106(c) of this title.’’.

20 SEC. 3. INCREASE IN THE BURIAL PLOT ALLOWANCE.

21 Paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 903(b) of title 38,

22 United States Code, are amended by striking out ‘‘$150’’

23 each place it appears and inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘$300’’.

Æ
**Exhibit 32.1****Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**In connection with the Annual Report of FelCor Lodging Trust Incorporated (the “Registrant”) onForm 10-K for the three months and year ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report), the undersigned hereby certifies, in thecapacity as indicated below and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and  2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of Registrant.     February 28, 2007 /s/Richard A. Smith         Richard A. Smith    Chief Executive Officer
#### Robert MORGAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-204.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Dec. 23, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Wesley THOMAS, Sr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. N-433.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Aug. 20, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### BLUE LAKE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Appellant, v. Edward CARRICARTE et ux., Appellees.

No. 71-365.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 18, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
## DJI **S1000 PRE**  **- FLIGHT CHECKLIST** 

**BEFORE DEPARTING FOR SITE CHECK**  Aircraft (AC) and Remote Controller (RC) batteries fully charged Tablet fully charged Portab le Radio for communicating with manned AC fully charged Ensure SD card has free space and is inserted into the camera Ensure Firmware is updated on AC and RC(s) Cache location maps into all DJI Pilot app devices Check for frequency (FX) used by local m anned AC ( Skyvector.com ) Check if flight location is in No - Fly Zone (Check here: airmap.io ) Program local FX into portable radio Check for NOTAMs and Temporary Fligh t Restrictions (TFRs) Check weather

 Precipitation less than 5 - 10%  Winds under 20kts  Cloud layer above 500' (152M)  1 statute mile visibility 

### LOCATION ON **- SITE CHECK**  Check flying area free of overhead obstructions

 Wires, low flying AC, trees, tall buildings  Antennas that may interfere with compass and GPS reception Weather meets conditions

 Winds under 20 kts (23 MPH or 10 meters per second)  Clouds above 500’ (152M)  Visibility for 1 statute mile Confirm flight plan with camera operator and/or spotter

### PHYSICAL AIRCRAFT CH **ECK**

Desired ND filter attached to camera Camera locked in place SD card in camera Motors clear of Foreign Object Debris (FOD) Che ck propellers for any melting, misshapen, or cracks Propellers hand tight Prop locks firmly **REMOTE CONTROLLER CH ECK**  Antennas oriented Properly Switch to P - GPS mode Landing gear switch oriented down Check battery level of RC for minimum 95% **DJI GO A PP CHECK**  Maximum Flight altitude set 121 Meters (400’) Failsafe Mode, Set for 10M Clearance above lowest obstacle in flight plan RC Signal Lost set to Return -to - Home Check Sensors

 Gyroscope between “- 1.0 to +1.0”  Acceleration between “- 1.0 to +1.0”  Com pass MOD between “1400 - 1599”  Check IMU Image Transmission Channel set Note: Watch channels for 30 seconds to ensure selected channel is indeed stable Battery Cells all 4.28V or greater

 At least 98% battery  Ensure no greater than .2V between battery ce lls Adjust Gimbal Roll to make level Ensure enough Satellites are locked (recommend 16)Set Camera Orientation mode

Turn all devices to airplane mode Face AC into the wind Check heading of Aircraft Start Video recording Start Propellers using a Combined Stick Command (CSC) Ensure blue dot representing RC is accurately located on map Ensure home point is accurately set on map Ensure elevation reads 0 (zero)
#### GULF STATES UTILITIES COMPANY v. John A. MOORE, Jr.

No. 6929.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

March 13, 1967.

Rehearing Denied April 17, 1967.

I F. W. Middleton, Jr., of Taylor, Porter, Brooks, Fuller & Phillips, Baton Rouge, for appellant

Victor A. Sachse, of Breazeale, Sachse & Wilson, Baton Rouge, Wilton T. McCay, Jr., of Sanders, Miller, Downing, Rubin *&*Kean, Baton Rouge, for appellees.

Before LOTTINGER, REID and SAR-TAIN, JJ.

LOTTINGER, Judge.

This is a suit for expropriation filed by Gulf States Utilities Company as petitioner against John A. Moore, Jr. as defendant. The Lower Court rendered judgment in favor of petitioner and against defendant, granting . the servitude sought, and awarding defendant the sum of $114,715.00, with interest, for the servitude and damages. The petitioner has taken this appeal.

For purposes of trial below, this suit was consolidated with two other suits, namely, Gulf States Utilities Company v. Moore et al., 197 So.2d 100, No. 6928 on the docket of this Court, and the same petitioner v. Bingham, 197 So.2d 106, No. 6930 on the docket of this Court. All three of these consolidated suits were considered in our reasons for judgment which was this day rendered in the matter entitled Gulf States Utilities Company v. Moore, et al.

For the reasons this day assigned in the matter entitled Gulf States Utilities Company v. Moore et al., the judgment of the Lower Court will be affirmed, all costs of this appeal to be paid by petitioner.

Judgment affirmed.
Converted by EDGARwiz


Exhibit 10.10

许可使用协议补充协议

License Agreement Supplement Agreement




甲方:山东省农业科学院

Party A: Shandong Academy of Agriculture

乙方:广东格旺生物科技股份有限公司

Party B: Guangdong Gewang Biotechnology Co., Ltd.




甲、乙双方本着平等自愿、意思自由等原则的基础上,对2015年12月30日签订的《许可使用协议》的第一条达成如下补充:

Based on the principle of equity and free will, Party A and Party B agreed the following supplement terms to Term 1 of “License Agreement” signed on December 30, 2016 (herein after referred to as the Original Agreement”):




1、

原《许可使用协议》的规定:

I. the terms of the Original Agreement




甲方允许乙方使用其自主研发的非专利技术,即硒康胶囊、硒芝胶囊、有机硒粉三种配方(以下统称“该产品”或“配方”)。

arty A allows Party B to use its non patented technology which is of independent research and development, and that is the three recipes of xikang capsule, xizhi capsule and organic selenium powder (hereinafter generally referred to as “the product” or “recipe”)




2、

补充如下:

II. Supplement Terms:




甲方独家授权乙方在全国范围内使用其自重研发的非专利技术,即硒康胶囊、硒芝胶囊、有机硒粉三种配方(以下统称“该产品”或“配方”)。甲方保证其不会将该技术授权给除乙方以外的第三方,乙方尊重甲方的非专利技术,并支付给甲方技术使用费。

Party A exclusively authorize Party B to use its non-patented technology within PRC Territory. Its non-patented technology is the three recipes of xikang capsule, xizhi capsule and organic selenium powder (hereinafter generally referred to as “the product” or “recipe”). Party A guarantee not to authorize the technology to any third party, Party B respects Party A’s non-patented technology and pay to Party A an usage fee.  




3、

补充内容以补充协议为主,其他内容以原协议为主。本协议是原协议不可分割的组成部分,与原协议具有同等的法律效力。




4、

本协议补充自双方签字盖章之日起生效本协议一式两份,甲乙双方各执一份,具有同等的法律效力。







甲方(盖章):山东省农业科学院

Party A (seal): Shandong Academy of Agriculture

甲方代表人:

Representative of Party A:

签署日期: 2015年 1 月 14 日

Signed date: 14 January 2015







乙方(盖章):广东格旺生物科技股份有限公司

Party B (seal): Guangdong Gewang Biotechnology Co., Ltd.

乙方代表人:                          签署日期: 2015年 1 月 14 日

Representative of Party B:                 Signed date: 14 January 2015










1
Exhibit 32.2



SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION



I, John C. Wilson, Chief Financial Officer of i2 Telecom International, Inc. (the Company), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. §1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



| | 1. | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A of the Company for the period ended June 30, 2005 (the Periodic 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 Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: October 13, 2005



/s/ John C. WilsonJohn C. Wilson,Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of REVA Medical, Inc.;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
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in
this report;4.
    
    I am responsible for establishing and maintaining
disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
registrant 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 registrant,
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 registrant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
registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most
recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal
quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrants internal control
over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of
internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrants auditors and the audit committee of the
registrant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 registrant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 registrants internal control over
financial reporting.
  /s/       Robert B. StockmanRobert B. StockmanChairman and Chief Executive Officer
(principal executive 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
 
 In connection with the Quarterly Report of GSP-1, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011 (the “Report”), I, Peter Goldstein, President 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, that:
 
 1.           The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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.
 
 Date: May 23, 2011
/s/ Peter GoldsteinPeter GoldsteinPresident

(Principal Executive and Financial Officer)
#### Wellman G. PERCLE v. ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE INS. CO.

No. 60703.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 26, 1977.

In re: Wellman C. Percle applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge, 349 So.2d 1289. . .

Writ denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

RONALD M. LEWIS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

No. 96-1845

MARVIN RUNYON, Postmaster

General - United States Postal

Service,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.

Claude M. Hilton, District Judge.

(CA-95-1287-A)

Submitted: December 12, 1996

Decided: December 24, 1996

Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG,

Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Ronald M. Lewis, Appellant Pro Se. James Ennis Macklin, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for

Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Ronald M. Lewis appeals from the district court's order dismissing

his employment discrimination and retaliation action pursuant to Title

VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A.

§ 2000e-16 (West 1994). Lewis alleged discrimination on the basis of

his race (black) and sex (male) arising out of his job termination. At

the close of Lewis' trial evidence, the district court granted Defendant's Fed. R. Civ. P. 52 motion.

On appeal from judgment after a bench trial, this court will not disturb the district court's findings of fact unless clearly erroneous. Fed.

R. Civ. P. 52(a); Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564,

573-74 (1985); Carter v. Ball, 33 F.3d 450, 457 (4th Cir. 1994). Our

review of the record and the district court's reasoning discloses that

this appeal is without merit.

Lewis failed to establish a prima facie case of discriminatory discharge. See O'Connor v. Consolidated Coin Caterers Corp., ___ U.S.

___, 64 U.S.L.W. 4243 (U.S. Apr. 1, 1996) (No. 95-354); see also

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973);

Lawrence v. Mars, Inc., 955 F.2d 902, 905-06 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,

506 U.S. 823 (1992). Moreover, given that Lewis failed to demonstrate that the individual who decided to terminate him was aware of

the prior Equal Employment Opportunity complaints Lewis had filed,

or that a causal connection existed between the protected activity and

the adverse action, Lewis likewise has failed to make out a prima

facie case of retaliatory discharge. See Williams v. Cerberonics, Inc.,

871 F.2d 452, 457 (4th Cir. 1989); Ross v. Communications Satellite

Corp., 759 F.2d 355, 365 (4th Cir. 1985). Accordingly, we cannot say

that the district court's finding of non-discrimination was clearly erroneous. Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. at 574. We therefore affirm the district court's order. We dispense with oral argument

 2
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED

 3
#### HARRY RICH CEILINGS AND FLOORS, INC., Appellant, v. E. M. SEGALL and Harry Levy, et al., Appellees.

No. 71-1422.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 19, 1972.

Horton, Schwartz & Perse, Sandler & Sandler, Miami, for appellant.

Burton R. Levey, Miami, for appellees.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and PEARSON and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in a mechanic’s lien foreclosure action appeals a final judgment entered for the defendants-counterclaimants after a trial before the court. The issues were formed upon the conflicting claims between the parties regarding the amount due and the quality of the work performed. The case was fully tried in the court below and the final judgment is supported by the record. On this appeal, appellant’s principal point is directed to the method of computation employed by the trial court. Other points urge errors in the reception of evidence, and that it was error to fail to allow plaintiff’s claim to a lien.

Our examination of the record in the light of the briefs results in the conclusion that prejudicial error has not been demonstrated.

Affirmed.
#### Elliot L. MILLER, Appellant, v. Ronald D. TUCKER et al., Appellees.

No. 72-1043.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 8, 1973.

Elliot L. Miller, Miami, for appellant.

Horton, Schwartz & Perse, Miami, Alan Kornblum and Norman R. Lyons, Miami, for appellees.

Before PEARSON, CHARLES CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Allstate Mortgage Corp. of Florida v. Strasser, Fla.App.1973, 277 So.2d 843.
V

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 3113

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise

trade of the United States for the vessel ENDEAVOUR.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 21, 1993

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut introduced the following bill; which was referred

to the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries

A BILL

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a

certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise trade of the

United States for the vessel ENDEAVOUR.

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

3 That notwithstanding section 27 of the Merchant Marine

4 Act, 1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 883), the Act of June 19, 1886

5 (46 App. U.S.C. 289), and section 12106 of title 46,

6 United States Code, the Secretary of Transportation may

7 issue a certificate of documentation with appropriate en8 dorsement for employment in the coastwise trade of the
2

•HR 3113 IH

1 United States for the vessel ENDEAVOUR (United

2 States official number 602496).

Æ