alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**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, Brent Suen, the Chief Financial Officer of Weyland Tech, Inc.. (the “Company”), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:

     1. The Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2018 (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 20th day of November, 2018.

 

/s/ Brent Suen

 

Brent Suen

 

Chief Financial Officer

 

*(Principal Financial Officer)*

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Weyland Tech, Inc. and will be retained by Weyland Tech, Inc. 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. |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
```

            Certification of Principal Executive Officer Pursuant To
                             18 U.S.C. Section 1350
      As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act Of 2002

I, Warren B. Kanders, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual
Report of Armor Holdings, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2004, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual
Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial
condition and results of operations of Armor Holdings, Inc.

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.

Date: March 7, 2005                             By:    /s/ Warren B. Kanders
                                                       -------------------------
                                                Name:  Warren B. Kanders
                                                Title: Chief Executive Officer
```
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 100 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. CON. RES. 100

Expressing the support of Congress for a National Moment of Remembrance 
to be observed at 3:00 p.m. eastern standard time on each Memorial Day.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 29, 2000

    Mr. Hagel (for himself and Mr. Kerrey) submitted the following 
   concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the 
                               Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Expressing the support of Congress for a National Moment of Remembrance 
to be observed at 3:00 p.m. eastern standard time on each Memorial Day.

Whereas the preservation of basic freedoms and world peace has always been a 
        valued objective of this great country;
Whereas thousands of American men and women have selflessly given their lives in 
        service as peacemakers and peacekeepers;
Whereas greater strides should be made to demonstrate the appreciation and 
        gratitude these loyal Americans deserve and to commemorate the ultimate 
        sacrifice they made;
Whereas Memorial Day is the day of the year for the Nation to appropriately 
        remember American heroes by inviting the citizens of this Nation to 
        respectfully honor them at a designated time;
Whereas Memorial Day needs to be made relevant to both present and future 
        generations of Americans; and
Whereas a National Moment of Remembrance would provide citizens in the United 
        States an opportunity to participate in a symbolic act of American 
        unity: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That Congress--
            (1) expresses its support for a National Moment of 
        Remembrance at 3:00 p.m. eastern standard time on each Memorial 
        Day in honor of the men and women of the United States who died 
        in the pursuit of freedom and peace; and
            (2) requests that the President issue a proclamation 
        calling upon the people of the United States to observe a 
        National Moment of Remembrance on each Memorial Day.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit        32.1**

| 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. |
|----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                    |                                                                                        |   |
|-----------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Dated:                    May 18_, 2007 |                                                                                        |   |
|                                    | Ban Jun Yang, President, CEO and Director(Principal Executive                      Officer) |

----
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2263 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Cypermethrin. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 

Cypermethrin. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CYPERMETHRIN. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.11.74 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended 

6 by striking ‘‘12/31/2009’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 

7 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

8 subsection (a) applies with respect to goods entered, or 

9 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

10 the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
#### James Dennis CARTER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. BO-307.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 18, 1987.

Michael E. Allen, Public Defender, and P. Douglas Brinkmeyer, Asst. Public Defender, Tallahassee, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Royall P. Terry, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This cause is before us on appeal, pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), of a judgment and sentence withholding adjudication for grand theft and sentencing appellant to three years of probation and payment of restitution. After reviewing the entire record, we find no error in the *54proceedings below; however we remand for the ministerial act of correcting the judgment to reflect that appellant has been found guilty by the verdict of a jury as opposed to entering a plea of guilty to grand theft.

BOOTH, C.J., and MILLS and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2354 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2354

   To extend temporarily the suspension of duty on RC Retarder 1092.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2009

  Mr. Voinovich (for himself and Mr. Brown) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To extend temporarily the suspension of duty on RC Retarder 1092.

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

SECTION 1. RC RETARDER 1092.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.12.78 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to RC Retarder 1092) is amended 
by striking the date in the effective column period and inserting ``12/
31/2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form S-2 (333-86548), S-3 (No. 333-24083) and S-8 (No. 333-38929,
333-49787 and 333-103453) of Meadowbrook Insurance Group, Inc., of our report
dated February 12, 2004 relating to the financial statements, which appears in
the Annual Report to Shareholders, which is incorporated in this Annual Report
on Form 10-K. We also consent to the incorporation by reference of our report
dated February 12, 2004 relating to the financial statement schedules, which
appears in this Form 10-K.

Grand Rapids, Michigan
March 12, 2004
#### The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Randal Ray ROEDEL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 84CA0124.

Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. III.

May 2, 1985.

Duane Woodard, Atty. Gen., Charles B. Howe, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen., Richard H. Forman, Sol. Gen., Peter J. Stapp, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for plaintiff-appellee.

David F. Vela, Colorado State Public Defender, Douglas D. Barnes, Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, for defendant-appellant.

STERNBERG, Judge.

Following his plea of guilty to second degree assault, the defendant, Randal Roe-del, was sentenced to six years in prison plus one year of parole. At the time of sentencing, the trial court held an eviden-tiary hearing on the question of pre-sen-tence good-time credit, the court refused to award such credit. The defendant appeals and we reverse.

At the sentencing hearing, the jail administrator alleged that the defendant had made an unauthorized telephone call, and had spilled coffee through a food slot. After the hearing, the court made written findings and concluded that the defendant should not receive good-time credit because of the coffee incident. The court found that the spilling of the coffee was an accident, but that,

> “while the evidence establishes that the defendant did not intentionally spill or throw the coffee his subsequent conduct in regard to the coffee incident convinces this court that after the accident occurred he was content that it had happened and by his actions adopted it as an intentional act.”

Based on this one incident, the trial court determined that the defendant’s action was conduct sufficient to deny him good-time credit.

A defendant is entitled to good-time credit on his sentence for time spent in a county jail prior to sentencing. *People v. Chavez,*659 P.2d 1381 (Colo.1983). If a defendant has “substantially observed all the rules and regulations” of the jail, he is entitled to good-time credit. Section 17-22.5-301, C.R.S. (1984 Cum.Supp.); *People v. Hamilton,*662 P.2d 177 (Colo.1983).

*892The trial court found that, although the defendant was angry and upset, and subsequently had an argument over the incident with the jail administrator, the defendant had not intentionally spilled the coffee. No evidence was presented which would support the trial courts conclusion that the defendant subsequently adopted the spill as intentional behavior, and thereby violated the rules and regulations of the jail. Moreover, the defendant had been punished for the incident by having his commissary privileges taken away for a week.

On this record, we conclude that there was no showing that the defendant had not substantially observed all of the rules and regulations of the institution, or was otherwise guilty of misconduct that would justify forfeiture of his good-time credit under § 17-20-108, C.R.S. (1978 Repl.Vol. 8). Consequently, we hold it was an abuse of discretion to refuse to award him good-time credit,

The order denying good_time credit 1⁄8 reversed, and the cause is remanded for determination of the appropriate good time for pre-sentence confinement,

TURSI and METZGER, JJ., concur,
Exhibit 31.2**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**I, Cara D. Obert, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of United Development Funding III, L.P.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;  (b) Intentionally omitted;  (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and  (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of our annual report)that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.     Dated this 29th day of June, 2006.      /s/ Cara D. Obert Cara D. Obert, Chief Financial Officer ofUMT Holdings, L.P., limited partner ofUMTH Land Development, L.P., generalpartner of the Registrant
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-1833

In re: MALCOLM A. JORDAN,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.

Submitted: September 28, 2023 Decided: October 2, 2023

Before NIEMEYER, THACKER, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Malcolm A. Jordan, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1833 Doc: 7 Filed: 10/02/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Malcom A. Jordan petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court 

has unduly delayed ruling on his amended 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. He seeks an order 

from this court directing the district court to act. Because there has been significant recent 

progress in the district court, the present record does not reveal undue delay. Accordingly, 

we deny the mandamus petition. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument 

would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1833 Doc: 7 Filed: 10/02/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-14-00049-CR

ANTHONY LEE JOHNSON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 124th District Court

Gregg County, Texas

Trial Court No. 41,097-B

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Anthony Lee Johnson appeals his conviction, on his open plea of guilty, of driving while 

intoxicated, subsequent offense. He raises a single contention of error, arguing that the trial 

court erred by ordering that he, an indigent person, pay fees of his court appointed counsel. The 

State has acknowledged this error, and likewise requests that we modify the judgment to 

eliminate the assessment of attorney fees.

The judgment itemizes the costs assessed against Johnson including $765.00 for attorney 

fees. Johnson was found indigent before trial, and there is no indication of any change in that 

status. 

We have addressed this precise error numerous times. Court-appointed attorney fees 

cannot be assessed against an indigent defendant unless there is proof and a finding that such 

defendant is no longer indigent. Cates v. State, 402 S.W.3d 250, 251–52 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2013); Mayer v State, 309 S.W. 3d 552, 555–56 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). In this case, there is no 

such evidence or finding. Error is thus shown. Under such circumstances, the proper remedy is 

not to reverse the conviction; rather, the proper remedy is to modify the judgment by removing

the fee assessment. Cates, 402 S.W.3d at 251–52; Mayer, 309 S.W.3d at 555–56; Martin v. State,

405 S.W.3d 944 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2013, no pet.).
3

We modify the judgment of the trial court by deleting the assessment of attorney fees. 

As modified, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

Jack Carter

Justice

Date Submitted: October 1, 2014

Date Decided: October 2, 2014

Do Not Publish
##### 



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
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and
 (2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 /s/ Gregory K. RoeperGregory K. RoeperChief Executive OfficerMarch 29, 2006
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 234 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

2105 East Cook Street in Springfield, Illinois, as the ‘‘Colonel John 

H. Wilson, Jr. Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 14, 2009 

Mr. DURBIN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 2105 East Cook Street in Springfield, Illinois, 

as the ‘‘Colonel John H. Wilson, Jr. Post Office Building’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. COLONEL JOHN H. WILSON, JR. POST OFFICE 

4 BUILDING. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

6 Postal Service located at 2105 East Cook Street in 

7 Springfield, Illinois, shall be known and designated as the 

8 ‘‘Colonel John H. Wilson, Jr. Post Office Building’’. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•S 234 IS

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

4 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Colonel John H. Wil5 son, Jr. Post Office Building’’. 

Æ 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS