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 Annual Report of Paxson CommunicationsCorporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/ A forthe year ending December 31, 2004 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I, Lowell W. Paxson, Chairman and ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-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 results of    operations of the Company.     /s/ LOWELL W. PAXSON           Lowell W. Paxson *Chairman and Chief Executive Officer* *(Principal Executive Officer)*Dated: April 29, 2005
#### Buffalo Municipal Housing Authority, Respondent, v Gross Plumbing & Heating Co., Inc., Appellant.

Order and judgment unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion denied and cross motion granted. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred by granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, awarding plaintiff a judgment against defendant in the amount of the bid bond plus interest, costs and disbursements, and denying defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment rescinding the bid and cancelling the bid bond *(see, City of Syracuse v Sarkisian Bros.,*87 AD2d 984, *affd*57 NY2d 618; *Balaban-Gordon Co. v Brighton Sewer Dist. No. 2,*41 AD2d 246). When defendant computed the total amount of its bid, it failed to include a single sheet of data pertaining to carpentry work that totalled an additional sum of $88,900. Defendant’s bid was thus understated by that amount. The record establishes that the clerical or mathematical mistake made by defendant in its bid for certain plumbing rehabilitation at plaintiff’s A.D. Price Courts and Extension project was excusable and material and of such an amount as to make enforcement of the contract unconscionable. The computational error was subject to objective determination by a comparison of the work sheets and the bid proposal. Defendant discovered the error and notified plaintiff’s representative approximately four hours after the opening of bids. Therefore, plaintiff had full opportunity to correct the condition or to reject the bid and award the contract to another bidder. Under the circumstances of this case, plaintiff "should not be allowed to enforce the bargain” *(Balaban-Gordon Co. v Brighton Sewer Dist. No. 2, supra,*at 251). "Even though the mistake is the product of negligence on the part of the bidder”, relief should not be withheld *(Balaban-Gordon Co. v Brighton Sewer Dist. No. 2, supra,*at 251). The provisions of plaintiff’s instructions to bidders preventing withdrawal of bids on the ground of negligence do not, in these circumstances, preclude granting rescission because the mistake was clerical and not judgmental in nature *(see, Jobco, Inc. v County of Nassau,*129 AD2d 614, 615). Accordingly, the bid is rescinded and the bid bond cancelled *(see, City of Syracuse v*
      *1031
      *Sarkisian Bros., supra; Derouin’s Plumbing & Heating v City of Watertown,*71 AD2d 822; *Balaban-Gordon Co. v Brighton Sewer Dist. No. 2, supra).*(Appeal from Order and Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Joslin, J.—Partial Summary Judgment.) Present—Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
**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**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Azaz Capital Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Robert Weber, herebycertify, 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:

 

|   | (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 as of the date and for the  periods expressed in the Report. |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| /s/ Robert Weber        |
|-------------------------|
| Robert Weber            |
| Chief Executive Officer |
|                    |
| May 27, 2011            |

 

 

 

The foregoing certification is being furnished solelypursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Reportor as a separate disclosure document.

 

                                                                        

----
#### James D. REEDUS, Petitioner, v. The Honorable Thomas E. LEE, Jr., Chief Judge of the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, In and For Dade County, Florida et al., Respondents.

No. 73-182.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 20, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Mandamus and Prohibition denied.
Exhibit 32.2




Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the


Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002




I, Gregory A. White, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of First Connecticut Bancorp, Inc., a Maryland corporation (the “Company”), certify in my capacity as an officer of the Company that I have reviewed the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the three and nine month periods ended September 30, 2011 (the “Report”) and that to the best of their knowledge:




1.
the Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 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.




Date: November 14, 2011

/s/ Gregory A. WhiteGregory A. WhiteExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer




A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
IC 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 540 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 25, 2013 

Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

AN ACT 

To designate the air route traffic control center located in 

Nashua, New Hampshire, as the ‘‘Patricia Clark Boston 

Air Route Traffic Control Center’’. 

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


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

S 540 RFH

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF PATRICIA CLARK BOSTON 

2 AIR ROUTE TRAFFIC CONTROL CENTER. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—The air route traffic control cen4 ter located in Nashua, New Hampshire, and any successor 

5 air route traffic control center at that location, shall be 

6 known and designated as the ‘‘Patricia Clark Boston Air 

7 Route Traffic Control Center’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

10 States to the air route traffic control center referred to 

11 in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the 

12 ‘‘Patricia Clark Boston Air Route Traffic Control Cen13 ter’’. 

Passed the Senate March 21, 2013. 

Attest: NANCY ERICKSON, 

Secretary. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
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 RAAM Global Energy Company (the Company), a Delaware corporation, for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Howard A. Settle, Chief Executive 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 the best of 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|    |  |                          |  |                         |  |             
|--- |  | ------------------------ |  | ----------------------- |  | ------------
|    |  | Signature                |  | Title                   |  | Date        
|By: |  | /s/     Howard A. Settle |  | Chief Executive Officer |  | May 13, 2011
|    |  |                          |  |                         |  |             
|    |  | Howard A. Settle         |  |                         |  |             

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to RAAM
Global Energy Company and will be retained by RAAM Global Energy Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
---

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

The undersigned, Xuecheng Xia, the Chief Executive Officer of
ASIA LEECHDOM HOLDING CORPORATION (the Company), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:

1.     The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended March 31, 2011 (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.     Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the
Company.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned has executed this
statement this 16th day of May, 2011.

/s/ Xuecheng
XiaXuecheng Xia Chief Executive Officer (Principal
Executive Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 has been provided to Asia Leechdom Holding Corporation and will be retained
by Asia Leechdom Holding Corporation and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

The forgoing certification is being furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission pursuant to § 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not being
filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the
Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general
incorporation language in such filing.

---
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 6023** 

EARL J. MORGAN, III , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. R. K. LEWIS, HCC Captain; J. W. KING, HCC Sergeant; DOBYNS, Sergeant; TUPPONS, HCC Corr. Officer; BRYANT, HCC Corr. Officer; S. W. ALLEN, HCC Hearing Officer; D. R. DUGGER, GRCC Hearing Officer; JOYCETINE BOONE, GRCC Assist. Warden; A. DAVID ROBINSON, Regional Director; ELLIOT, Corr. Officer , Defendants

– Appellees , and
PATRICK J. GURNEY, HCC Assist. Warden; DAN IEL T. MAHON, HCC Warden , Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria

. James C. Cacheris , Senior District Judge. ( 1:11

- cv
- 01150

- JCC

- TCB )

Submitted : February 26 , 2013 Decided: March 1, 2013

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.2 Earl J. Morgan, I II, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Carson Vorhis, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Kate Elizabeth Dwyre , OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY G ENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees

.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM:
Earl J. Morgan, III appeals the district court ’ s order denying relief on Morgan’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint

. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. See Morgan v. R. Lewis , No. 1:11

- cv
- 01150

- JCC

- TCB (E.D.
Va. Dec. 19, 2012)

. We also deny Morgan’s motion to appoint

counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2014-0464 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2014-SW-002-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

No Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
14-15-00106-CR & 14-15-00147-CR

In the 

Court of Appeals 

For the 

Fourteenth District of Texas 

At Houston 



No. 1434158 

In the 177th District Court of 

Harris County, Texas 



JOE GARCIA

Appellant 

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

Appellee 



STATE’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

IN WHICH TO FILE APPELLATE BRIEF 



TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS:

 COMES NOW THE STATE OF TEXAS, in accordance with Rules 10.5(b)(1) 

and 38.6(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, and files this motion for 

extension of time in which to file the State’s brief in these cases, and, in support 

thereof, presents the following: 

1. In the 177th district court of Harris County, Texas, cause number 1434158, 

the State of Texas v. Joe Garcia, appellant, was convicted of possession of a 

controlled substance. 

ACCEPTED

14-15-00147-CR

FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

10/20/2015 3:42:16 PM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 14th COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 10/20/2015 3:42:16 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
2. He was assessed punishment of confinement for 4 years in the Institutional 

Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.

3. The State’s brief was due on October 19, 2015.

4. An extension of time in which to file the State’s brief is requested until 

October 19, 2015.

5. One previous extension has been requested by the State. 

6. The facts relied upon to explain the need for this extension are:

Since my last motion for extension, I have filed a brief in cause number 

01-14-00966-CR, and will be filing a brief in cause 01-15-00272-CR this week.

Additionally, I answer trial court questions from other prosecutors on a daily 

basis. This motion is not sought for delay, but so that justice may be done.

WHEREFORE, the State prays that this Court will grant an extension of time 

until November 20, 2015 in which to file the State’s brief in this case.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Abbie Miles

Abbie Miles

Assistant District Attorney

Harris County, Texas

1201 Franklin, Suite 600

Houston, Texas 77002

(713) 274-5826

TBC No. 24072240
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing instrument has been mailed to the 

appellant’s attorney at the following address on October 20, 2015:

Nicolette Westbrooks

3200 Southwest Freeway, Suite 3300

Houston, TX 77027

/s/ Abbie Miles

Abbie Miles

Assistant District Attorney

Harris County, Texas

Date: October 20, 2015
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3984 Committee Discharged Senate (CDS)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3984

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              June 7, 1994

  Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental 
                                Affairs

            October 8 (legislative day, September 12), 1994

                          Committee discharged

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the building located at 216 Coleman Avenue in Waveland, 
 Mississippi, for the period of time during which it houses operations 
  of the United States Postal Service, as the ``John Longo, Jr. Post 
                               Office''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The building located at 216 Coleman Avenue in Waveland, 
Mississippi, shall, for the period of time during which it houses 
operations of the United States Postal Service, be known and designated 
as the ``John Longo, Jr. Post Office''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the building referred to in section 1 
shall, with respect to the period referred to in section 1, be deemed 
to be a reference to the John Longo, Jr. Post Office.

            Passed the House of Representatives May 23, 1994.

            Attest:

                                           DONNALD K. ANDERSON,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
---

Exhibit 32.2

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

The undersigned, Shuyuan Chang, the Chief Financial Officer of
ASIA LEECHDOM HOLDING CORPORATION (the Company), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:

1.     The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended March 31, 2011 (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.     Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the
Company.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned has executed this
statement this 16th day of May, 2011.

/s/ Shuyuan
ChangShuyuan Chang Chief Financial Officer (Principal
Financial Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 has been provided to Asia Leechdom Holding Corporation and will be retained
by Asia Leechdom Holding Corporation and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

The forgoing certification is being furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission pursuant to § 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not being
filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the
Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general
incorporation language in such filing.

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-3134

CUMIS INSURANCE SOCIETY, INCORPORATED,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MARK A. RILEY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District

Judge. (CA-95-1024-A)

Submitted: May 7, 1996 Decided: May 21, 1996

Before HAMILTON, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mark A. Riley, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Sanborn Owen, MILES & STOCKBRIDGE, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's orders granting

summary judgment to CUMIS Insurance Society, Inc., on Count One of

a Complaint charging Appellant with fraud; granting the Fed. R.

Civ. P. 41(a)(2) motion of CUMIS to dismiss Count Two, which alleged breach of fiduciary duty; and granting the motion of CUMIS to

dismiss Appellant's counterclaim. We have reviewed the record and

the district court's opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. CUMIS Ins.

Soc'y v. Riley, No. CA-95-1024-A (E.D. Va. Nov. 8, 1995). We deny

the motion for stay pending appeal and dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED