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 

I, Mark Lana, hereby 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of HS3 Technologies
      Inc. for the period ended March 31, 2008 (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 HS3 Technologies Inc.                                                                   

Dated: May 14, 2008

| | /s/
      Mark Lana                                    
| | -------------------------------------------------------
| | Mark Lana                                              
| | Chief Executive Officer and Director                   
| | (Principal Executive Officer, Principal
      Financial
| | Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)              
| | HS3 Technologies Inc.                                  

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to HS3 Technologies
Inc. and will be retained by HS3 Technologies Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo 

 

No. 07-23-00040-CV 

 

RICKYE HENDERSON, APPELLANT 

V. 

MUAYAD ALMAHBOBI AND SCHUH FAMILY LP, APPELLEES 

On Appeal from the 53rd District Court 

Travis County, Texas 

Trial Court No. D-1-GN-22-002051, Honorable Madeleine Connor, Presiding 

May 9, 2023 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before PARKER and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ. 

Appellant, Rickye Henderson, appearing pro se, appeals from the trial court’s 

Order Granting Defendant Schuh Family LP’s Traditional and No-Evidence Motion for 

Summary Judgment.

1

 Pending before the Court is a motion to dismiss the interlocutory 

1 Originally appealed to the Third Court of Appeals, this appeal was transferred to this Court by the 

Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001.
2

appeal for want of jurisdiction filed by Appellee, Schuh Family LP. We grant the motion 

and dismiss the appeal. 

In May 2022, Henderson sued Appellees, Muayad Almahbobi and Schuh Family, 

for breach of contract and other claims related to a purported sublease of commercial 

property. Appellees answered the suit. Schuh Family filed a counterclaim seeking 

declaratory relief and attorney’s fees. Schuh Family later moved for summary judgment 

on Henderson’s claims. On December 16, 2022, the trial court signed an order granting 

Schuh Family’s motion for summary judgment and dismissing Henderson’s claims against 

it. Henderson appealed the summary judgment order with Schuh Family’s counterclaim 

and Henderson’s claims against Almahbobi still pending.

We have jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a final judgment or from an 

interlocutory order made immediately appealable by statute. See Lehmann v. Har-Con 

Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001); Stary v. DeBord, 967 S.W.2d 352, 352–53 (Tex. 

1998) (per curiam). “[W]hen there has not been a conventional trial on the merits, an 

order or judgment is not final for purposes of appeal unless it actually disposes of every 

pending claim and party or unless it clearly and unequivocally states that it finally disposes 

of all claims and all parties.” Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 205. Here, the trial court’s summary 

judgment order is not a final judgment as it does not include any finality language, nor 

does it dispose of all pending parties and claims. Further, we have found no statutory 

authority permitting its interlocutory appeal.
3

Schuh Family now moves to dismiss the interlocutory appeal for want of 

jurisdiction. Henderson has filed a response to the motion, but failed to demonstrate 

grounds for continuing the appeal.

Because Henderson has not presented this Court with a final judgment or 

appealable order, we grant Schuh Family’s motion to dismiss and dismiss the appeal for 

want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).

Per Curiam
JUDGMENT

Court of Appeals 

 

First District of Texas 

NO. 01-14-00423-CV

SOUTHWEST WARREN, INC. AND THOMAS EUGENE MCCAIN, Appellants

V.

THERESA CRAWFORD, Appellee

Appeal from the 149th District Court of Brazoria County. (Tr. Ct. No. 72986).

This case is an appeal from the final judgment signed by the trial court on April 

17, 2014. After submitting the case on the appellate record and the arguments properly 

raised by the parties, the Court holds that there was reversible error in the trial court’s

judgment. Accordingly, the Court reverses the trial court’s judgment and remands the 

case to the trial court (1) for a hearing on Theresa Crawford’s reasonable attorneys’ fees 

incurred in seeking the default judgment to be assessed against Southwest Warren, Inc. 

and Thomas Eugene McCain and (2) for a new trial.

The Court orders that the appellee, Theresa Crawford, pay all appellate costs.

The Court orders that this decision be certified below for observance.

Judgment rendered April 9, 2015.
Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Higley, and Huddle. Opinion delivered by Justice 

Higley.
KEARNY FINANCIAL CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                STATEMENTS RE: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                ------------------------------------------------
           (In Thousands, Except Share and Per Share Data, Unaudited)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                        Three Months Ended     Six Months Ended
                                                        December 31, 2005      December 31, 2005
                                                        ------------------     -----------------
<S>                                                      <C>                    <C>
Income available to common stockholders                     $       2,326          $       5,290

Weighted average shares outstanding                            71,046,123             71,049,401

Basic earnings per share                                    $        0.03          $        0.07

Income for diluted earnings per share                       $       2,326          $       5,290

Total weighted average common shares and equivalents
outstanding for diluted computation                            71,096,851             71,074,765

Diluted earnings per share                                  $        0.03          $        0.07

</TABLE>
### SERVE D MARC H 23 , 201 1 ^:-1-ARTMEN TO F iAfJSPORTATIO N .:Ki: TOPERATION S 

### ?(J|( mZ U P \ : 3 b

U.S . DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N

OFFIC E O FHEARING S WASHINGTON , D C I N TH E MATTE RO F TRISHA N AIR , INC . FA A DOCKE T No . CP10WP001 3 (Civi l Penalty Action ) DM S No . FAA-2010-121 8

fi ORDE RDENYIN G MOTION S Responden t

Trishan Air, Inc . (hereinafter "Respondent" ) filedunde r Rul e 218(f

) o f th e Rule s o f

Practic e i n FAA Civi l Penalty Action s (1 4 CF R§13.218(f) ) aMotio n for aMor e Definite Statemen t an dMotio n t o Strik e (hereinafter "Motions") . Complainan t Federal Aviatio n Administratio n (hereinafter "FAA" ) answere dth e Motions , opposin g them . 1 ! Th e Motion s ar e i n al l respect s DENIED . Th e Complain t provide s th e Responden t

with adequat e notic e o f

th e charges . I t

i s clear an ddetaile denoug h t o frame aresponsiv e pleading . Further clarificatio n may b e obtaine dthroug h th e proces s of discovery . Se e Delawar e Skyways . LLC , FA A Orde r No . 2005- 6 (Marc h 18,2005) , p . 9 . In accordanc e wit

h Rul e 218(f)(3)(i) , Responden t shal l file a

n Answe r t o th e Complain t

no t late r than 1 0 day s afte

r servic e o f

thi s Order .

# n i- i S O ORDERED . 

# ijCclU4 I Q.Qyduy , Richar dC . Goodwi n Administrativ e Law Judg e Attachmen t

- Servic e Lis t

## A / FA A Docke t No . CP10WP001 3 (Civi l Penalt y Action ) SERVIC E LIS T ORIGINA L & ON E COP Y Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Washington , D C 2059 1 Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit e 2W1000 *

ON E COP Y Loui s S . Franecke , Respondent' s Counse l Franeck e La w Grou p 111 5 Irwi n Street , Suit e 10 0 Sa n Rafael , C A 9490 1 TEL : 415-457-704 0 FAX : 415-457-704 1 Do n Bobertz , Complainant' s Counse l Attorney , Offic e o f

th e Regiona l Counse l Western-Pacifi c Region , AWP- 7 Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n P.O : Bo x 9200 7 Lo s Angeles , C A 90009-200 7 TEL : 310-725-345 4 FAX : 310-725-681 6 Th e Honorabl e Richar dC . Goodwin , Administrativ e La w Judg e Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 U.S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E . Eas t Buildin g Groun dFloor , Roo mEl2-32 0 Washington , D C 2059 0 TEL : 202-366-213 9 Attorney-Adviso r 202-366-512 1 Lega l Assistan t FAX: , 202-366-753 6

* Service was by U.S . Mail . Fo r servic e in person o

r b y expeditedcourier, us e the followin g address : Federa

l Aviatio n Administration , 800 Independence Avenue , S.W. , Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit

e 2WI000 , Washington, DC 20391 ; Attention : Hearing Docke t Cleric , AGC-430 .
**Exhibit 32**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the QuarterlyReport of Neenah Paper, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for theperiod ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned herebycertifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his orher knowledge:

 

(1)               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 Report fairly presents, inall material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 
|   | /s/ Sean T. Erwin                                             |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Sean T.  Erwin                                                |
|   | Chairman  of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer |
|   | (Principal  Executive Officer)                                |
|   | Date: August 9,  2010                                    |
|   |                                                          |
|   | /s/ Bonnie C. Lind                                            |
|   | Bonnie  C. Lind                                               |
|   | Senior  Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer |
|   | (Principal  Financial Officer)                                |
|   | Date: August 9,  2010                                    |

 

----
DISMISS; Opinion Filed April 8 , 2013. 

# S

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05
- 13
- 00381
- CV IN RE BILLY RAY RISL EY , Relator On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 4 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. W74
- 11690
- K MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices O'Neill, Lang

- Miers, and Evans Opinion by Justice Evans Before the Court is relator’s petition for writ of mandamus complaining that the trial court has failed to properly handle and rule on his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The facts and issues are well known to the parties, so we need not recount them herein. This Court does not have jurisdiction over relator’s petition. See T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P RO C
. A NN
. art. 11.07 (West Supp. 2011); In re Hampton , No. 05

- 07

- 00440

- CV, 2007 WL 1168446 at *1 (Tex. App.

– Dallas Apr. 20, 2007, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). Accordingly, we DISMISS relator’s petition for a writ of mandamus for want of jurisdiction.

130381F.P05 / David W. Evans/ DAVID W. EVANS JUSTICE
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 28 Received in Senate (RDS)]

<DOC>
116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 28

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 24, 2019

                     Received; read the first time

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
Making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2019, and for 
                            other purposes.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Continuing 
Appropriations Act, 2019 (division C of Public Law 115-245) is further 
amended by 

              

striking the date specified in section 105(3) and inserting ``February 
28, 2019''.
     This joint resolution may be cited as the ``Further Additional 
Continuing Appropriations Act, 2019''.

            Passed the House of Representatives January 23, 2019.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
IA 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 39 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States waiving 

the application of the first article of amendment to the political speech 

of corporations and other business organizations with respect to the 

disbursement of funds in connection with public elections and granting 

Congress and the States the power to establish limits on contributions 

and expenditures in elections for public office. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 30, 2019 

Ms. KAPTUR (for herself and Ms. NORTON) submitted the following joint 

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United 

States waiving the application of the first article of 

amendment to the political speech of corporations and 

other business organizations with respect to the disbursement of funds in connection with public elections and 

granting Congress and the States the power to establish 

limits on contributions and expenditures in elections for 

public office. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives 

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the ConVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:45 Jan 30, 2019 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\HJ39.IH HJ39

pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HJ 39 IH 

1 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all 

2 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 

3 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several 

4 States within seven years after the date of its submission 

5 for ratification: 

6 ‘‘ARTICLE— 

7 ‘‘SECTION 1. The first article of amendment does not 

8 apply to the political speech of any corporation, partner9 ship, business trust, association, or other business organi10 zation with respect to the making of contributions, ex11 penditures, or other disbursements of funds in connection 

12 with public elections. 

13 ‘‘SECTION 2. Congress shall have power to set limits 

14 on the amount of contributions that may be accepted by, 

15 and the amount of expenditures that may be made by, in 

16 support of, or in opposition to, a candidate for nomination 

17 for election to, or for election to, Federal office. 

18 ‘‘SECTION 3. A State shall have power to set limits 

19 on the amount of contributions that may be accepted by, 

20 and the amount of expenditures that may be made by, in 

21 support of, or in opposition to, a candidate for nomination 

22 for election to, or for election to, State or local office. 

23 ‘‘SECTION 4. Congress shall have power to implement 

24 and enforce this article by appropriate legislation.’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

KENNETH HUIDONG KANG,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 14-10567

D.C. No. 1:12-cr-00042-FMTG

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Guam

Frances M. Tydingco-Gatewood, Chief Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 20, 2016** 

Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Kenneth Huidong Kang appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the six-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for

criminal conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 371, and harboring illegal

aliens, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) and (a)(1)(B)(i). We have

FILED

JAN 28 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Kang argues that the district court erred by denying his request for a threelevel mitigating role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. We review a district

court’s determination that a defendant did not have a mitigated role for clear error. 

See United States v. Rosas, 615 F.3d 1058, 1066 (9th Cir. 2010). In light of the

facts, including the length of Kang’s involvement in the conspiracy and his

harboring of illegal aliens in his own home, the district court did not clearly err in

denying the adjustment. See id. at 1067-68.

AFFIRMED.

2 14-10567
EXHIBIT 32.1



Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(18 U.S.C. Section 1350)



I, James A. Konrath, Chief Executive Officer of Accredited Mortgage Loan REIT Trust (the Registrant), 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, based on my knowledge:



(1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Registrant, to which this certification is attached as an exhibit (the Report),
fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and



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



Dated: August 9, 2005



By:

/s/    JAMES A.
KONRATHJames A. Konrath Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Accredited Mortgage Loan REIT Trust and will be retained by Accredited Mortgage Loan REIT Trust and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A15A0921. CATHY MICHONET v. IH2 PROPERTY GEORGIA, L.P.

This is the fourth appeal filed by attorney Grady Roberts on behalf of Cathy

Michonet in this dispossessory action. In the first, Case No. A14D0408, Michonet

appealed from a magistrate court order dismissing her appeal to superior court. We

transferred that case to Rockdale Superior Court on July 9, 2014. On October 13,

2014, the court issued a writ of possession in favor of IH2 Property Georgia, L.P., and

denied Michonet’s plea in abatement. Michonetfiled an application to challenge that

order, which we denied on October 29, 2014. See Case No. A15D0097. The trial

court entered yet another writ of possession in favor of IH2 Property on January 20,

2015. Michonet filed an application to challenge that order on February 9, 2015. We

dismissed the application as untimely. See Case No. A15D0257. 

Meanwhile, the superior court granted IH2 Property’s motionsfor supersedeas

bond in the case. In this direct appeal, Michonet challenges the order granting the

supersedeas bond. Because we have dismissed the underlying applications, any

issues pertaining to the supersedeas bonds are moot. See, e.g., Muhammad v. Power

Lending, LLC, 311 Ga. App. 347, 350 (5) (715 SE2d 734) (2011). And an appeal of

an issue that has become moot is subject to dismissal. OCGA § 5-6-48 (b) (3). 

Accordingly, this appeal is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

03/30/2015

March 30, 2015
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASH I NGTON , D

.C

. 20460



## FEB 

# 2 5 

## 2015
OFFICE O F AIR AND RAD IAT IO N MEMORANDUM From : Rebecca von dem Hagen, EPA/Stratospheric Protection



# Division **~** :q';?S/JS To: EPA Air Docket EPA-HQ

-OAR-2013-0748 Subject:

Date: EPA Meetings with Individual Stakeholders Concerning the SNAP Rule Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Listing of Substitutesfor Refrigeration andAir Conditioning and Revision of the Venting Prohibition for Certain Refrigerant Substitutes between Issuance of Proposed and Final Rules 02/26/2015 This memorandum lists meetings that EPA held with individual stakeholders between the signature of the proposed SNAP rule Protection ofStratospheric Ozone: Listing of Substitutes for Refrigeration andAir Conditioning and Revision of the Venting Prohibition for Certain Refrigerant Substitutes and the signature of the final rule. Publicly available information that the stakeholders provided to EPA is provided in the docket as attachments to this memorandum. Stakeholder Meetings and Calls Stakeholder Date Stakeholder Attendees EPA Attendees De Longhi 9/26114 Stefano Vit Cindy Newberg , Dave Godwin, Gerald Group Wozniak, Margaret Sheppard, Chenise Farquharson True 8/5/14 Charlie Hon, John Friend Drusilla Hufford, Cindy Newberg , Manufacturing Margaret Sheppard , Chenise Farquharson, Gerald Wozniak, Rebecca von dem Hagen A.S

. Trust & 8/21 / 14 Richard Maruya, Gary Cindy Newberg, Margaret Sheppard , Holdings Whitmyre, George Whitmyre, Rebecca von dem Hagen Frank Doyle, Andrew Tujios ; Ed Westoff True 11/6/14 Charlie Hon Cindy Newberg, Margaret Sheppard, Manufacturing Gerald Wozniak, Luke Hall-Jordan, Rebecca von dem Hagen

1 Internet Address (URL) • http //www.epa

. gov Recycl ed/ Re cyc lab le • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer , Process Chlor i ne Free Recycled Paper
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-14-00707-CR

Buford Randle AKA Randle Buford

v.

The State of Texas

On appeal from the

148th District Court of Nueces County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 14-CR-0561-E

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal 

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION in accordance with its opinion.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

April 9, 2015.