alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
        32.1
 **CERTIFICATION**
  **Pursuant
        to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**
 **(Section
        1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)**
  In
        connection with the Quarterly Report of Orsus Xelent Technologies, Inc. (the
        “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the
        Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Wang Xin,
        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,
        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.
 Date: May
                15,
                2008By:
              /s/ Wang
                  XinWang
                XinChief
                Executive 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.




30
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL

AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

In the Matter of: 

 

TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($10,000.00)

IN UNITED STATES CURRENCY. 

_______________________________

STATE OF ARIZONA, 

Plaintiff/Appellant,

 

v.

 

LEOPOLD SALEEM, 

Claimant/Appellee.

No. 1 CA-CV 14-0379

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CV2012-018339

The Honorable Robert H. Oberbillig, Judge

REVERSED AND REMANDED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix

By Peter S. Spaw

Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant

Leopold Saleem, Ft. Grant

Claimant/Appellee
STATE v. SALEEM

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Diane M. Johnsen delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Kent E. Cattani and Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop joined.

J O H N S E N, Judge:

¶1 The State appeals the superior court's grant of summary 

judgment in a civil forfeiture proceeding. We reverse the judgment and 

remand for further proceedings.

¶2 After a drug dog alerted to currency in Leopold Saleem's bag 

at the airport, the State seized the currency for forfeiture. Saleem filed a 

claim of interest and in due course moved for summary judgment, arguing 

there was insufficient evidence to link the money to the sale or possession 

of drugs. See In re Twenty-Four Thousand Dollars ($24,000) in U.S. Currency, 

217 Ariz. 199, 201, ¶ 7 (App. 2007). In response, the State argued that the 

drug-dog alert and Saleem's drug-related criminal history established a link 

sufficient to withstand summary judgment. The court granted Saleem's

motion and the State appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona 

Revised Statutes sections 12-120.21(A)(1), -2101(A)(1) (2015).1

¶3 Saleem failed to file an answering brief after receiving notice 

of the appeal and notice of the filing deadline. We hold this failure

constitutes a confession of reversible error. See Bugh v. Bugh, 125 Ariz. 190, 

191 (App. 1980) ("Where debatable issues are raised, the failure of an 

appellee to file an answering brief constitutes a confession of reversible 

error."). Accordingly, we reverse the judgment and remand for further 

proceedings.

 

1 Absent material revisions after the relevant date, we cite a statute's 

current version.
EXHIBIT 23


                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT



The Board of Directors and Stockholders
Carter-Wallace, Inc.

We consent to  incorporation  by reference in the  registration  statement  (No.
333-00499) on Form S-8 of Carter-Wallace, Inc. of our report dated May 27, 1998,
relating  to  the  consolidated  balance  sheets  of  Carter-Wallace,  Inc.  and
subsidiaries  as of  March  31,  1998 and  1997,  and the  related  consolidated
statements  of earnings  and  retained  earnings  and cash flows for each of the
years in the  three-year  period  ended March 31,  1998,  and related  financial
statement  schedule  which report appears in the March 31, 1998 Annual Report on
Form 10-K of Carter-Wallace, Inc.





                                                   KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP



New York, New York
June 17, 1998
# C_2012326EN.01004701.xml

| 26.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/1

---

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

PART THREE

UNION POLICIES AND INTERNAL ACTIONS

UNION POLICIES AND INTERNAL ACTIONS

TITLE II

FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS

FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS

CHAPTER 1

THE CUSTOMS UNION

Article 32

(ex Article 27 TEC)

(ex Article 27 TEC)

In carrying out the tasks entrusted to it under this Chapter the Commission shall be guided by:

| (a) | the need to promote trade between Member States and third countries; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

the need to promote trade between Member States and third countries;

| (b) | developments in conditions of competition within the Union in so far as they lead to an improvement in the competitive capacity of undertakings; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

developments in conditions of competition within the Union in so far as they lead to an improvement in the competitive capacity of undertakings;

| (c) | the requirements of the Union as regards the supply of raw materials and semi-finished goods; in this connection the Commission shall take care to avoid distorting conditions of competition between Member States in respect of finished goods; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

the requirements of the Union as regards the supply of raw materials and semi-finished goods; in this connection the Commission shall take care to avoid distorting conditions of competition between Member States in respect of finished goods;

| (d) | the need to avoid serious disturbances in the economies of Member States and to ensure rational development of production and an expansion of consumption within the Union. |
| --- | --- |

(d)

the need to avoid serious disturbances in the economies of Member States and to ensure rational development of production and an expansion of consumption within the Union.

---
# C_2012326EN.01004701.xml

| 26.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/1

---

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

PART THREE

UNION POLICIES AND INTERNAL ACTIONS

UNION POLICIES AND INTERNAL ACTIONS

TITLE II

FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS

FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS

CHAPTER 2

CUSTOMS COOPERATION

Article 33

(ex Article 135 TEC)

(ex Article 135 TEC)

Within the scope of application of the Treaties, the European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, shall take measures in order to strengthen customs cooperation between Member States and between the latter and the Commission.

---
CCC COMMODITY INVENTORY

As of October 31, 2019

(Million Units Except as Noted) OUTSTANDING UNDER LOAN CCC-OWNED

CY 2018 CY 2019 INVENTORY 2/

(Actual Units)

BUTTER (LB) - - 0.0

CHEESE (LB) - - 0.0

NONFAT DRY MILK (LB) - - 0.0

BARLEY (BU) 0.1 3.1 0.0

CORN (BU) 22.8 43.9 0.0

OATS (BU) 0.0 0.7 0.0

SORGHUM (BU) 0.2 0.4 0.0

SOYBEANS (BU) 7.5 17.3 0.0

WHEAT (BU) 5.2 40.6 0.0

RICE (CWT) 0.6 7.8 0.0

REFINED SUGAR (Mil. Lbs.) 211.0 179.0 0.0

 IN-PROCESS BEET 0.0 246.0 0.0

RAW CANE SUGAR (Mil. Lbs.) 0.0 193.9 0.0

 IN-PROCESS CANE 0.0 0.0 0.0

HONEY (Mil. Lbs.) 0.1 5.3 0.0

PEANUTS (tons) 27,250.0 923,300.0 14.24

CANOLA SEED (CWT) 1/ 78.0 614.0 0.0

CRAMBE (CWT) 1/ 0.0 0.0 0.0

FLAXSEED (CWT) 1/ 1.0 10.0 0.0

MUSTARD SEED (CWT) 1/ 0.0 0.0 0.0

RAPESEED (CWT) 1/ 0.0 0.0 0.0

SAFFLOWER SEED (CWT) 1/ 4.0 0.0 0.0

SESAME SEED (CWT) 1/ 0.0 0.0 0.0

SUNFLOWER SEED (OIL) (CWT) 1/ 22.0 16.0 0.0

SUNFLOWER SEED (Other) (CWT) 1/ 1.0 0.0 0.0

DRY PEAS (CWT) 1/ 119.0 933.0 0.0

LENTILS (CWT) 1/ 307.0 213.0 0.0

CHICKPEAS (CWT) 1/ 542.0 224.0 0.0

UPLAND COTTON (BALE) 79,200 2,029,300 37,104

ELS COTTON (BALE) 14,900 3,500 0

1/ Minor Oilseeds & Pulses are in thousand units.

2/ CCC acquired 2018 Crop Year upland cotton as follows: 

15 bales from May 2019, 81 bales from June 2019, 2,996 bales from July 2019, 17,630 

bales from August 2019, and 24,633 bales from September maturing loans. Following multiple 

Invitations for sale in September, a total of 8,251 bales of cotton were sold. In total, there were 

37,104 bales of upland cotton in inventory on October 31, 2019. 

CCC also acquired 4,559.12 tons of peanuts from July 2019, 37,417.73 tons of peanuts from 

August 2019, and 37,845.19 tons of peanuts from September 2019. Total CCC peanut inventory 

was 79,822.04 tons. CCC sold 340.51 tons from Invitation No. 8 and 28,563.44 tons from Invitation 

No. 9, 13,052.09 tons from Invitation No. 10, 34,005.36 tons from Invitation No. 11, and 3,846.40 

tons from Invitation No.12. This brought the total CCC peanut inventory to 14.24 tons as of October 31, 2019. 

Report Completed: November 13, 2019
<PAGE>

                                                                    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, Paul A. Ormond, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of Manor
Care, Inc. (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 to the best of
my knowledge:

     (1)  The Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended
          September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
          Commission on the date hereof (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, and for, the periods presented in the Report.

/s/ Paul A. Ormond

Paul A. Ormond
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
October 31, 2003

                                       31
#### In the Matter of Niagara Emergency Physicians Group, P. C., Appellant. Thomas F. Hartnett, as Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed January 2, 1990, which assessed Niagara Emergency Physicians Group, P. C. for additional unemployment insurance contributions.

The record supports the conclusion that the physicians engaged by Niagara Emergency Physicians Group, P. C. (hereinafter NEPG) were its employees and not independent contractors. Where, as here, professional services are involved and there is an absence of direct control, an employment relationship can be found where there is "substantial evidence of control over important aspects of the services performed other than results or means” *(Matter of Concourse Ophthalmology Assocs. [Roberts],*60 NY2d 734, 736). In this case, the evidence established that NEPG was responsible by contract for obtaining emergency room physicians and agreed to pay them at an established rate. NEPG scheduled the physicians to assure that there would be a physician on duty at all times. It also monitored complaints about its physicians because it was required by contract to review the performance of its physicians. Under these circumstances, there was substantial evidence to sustain the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board *(see, Matter of Stat Servs. [Hartnett],*148 AD2d 903). This is true even though there was evidence which could have supported a contrary conclusion *(see, supra).*NEPG’s remaining contentions have been reviewed and found to be lacking in merit.

Mikoll, J. P., Yesawich Jr., Levine, Mercure and Crew III, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, with costs.
The State of TexasAppellee/s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 14, 2015

No. 04-14-00548-CR

Leopoldo Cortez-LEIJA,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 216th Judicial District Court, Kendall County, Texas

Trial Court No. 5437

Honorable N. Keith Williams, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The State’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief is hereby GRANTED. The 

State’s brief is due May 6, 2015. No further extensions will be granted.

_________________________________

Karen Angelini, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 14th day of April, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
June 25, 2015 

Mr. Will Leverett 

300 S Lamar Blvd Apt 426 

Austin, TX 78704 

Dear Mr. Leverett: 

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your 

request and what you should do in the next 30 days. 

Why We Can Not Process Your Request 

We entered your June 15, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-2256), 

but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does not 

comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any 

further, you must send us all of the following: 

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief. 

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole. 

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request. 

What You Should Do 

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 
2 

If We Do Not Hear From You 

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Brenda Robeson 

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James Wade, Appellant.

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The trial court did not err by proceeding with the trial in defendant’s absence. Defendant, who was present for all the proof, did not appear on the date scheduled for *980summations and the court’s charge. The court made sufficient inquiry into the circumstances of defendant’s absence, and the record supports the court’s conclusion that defendant’s failure to appear was deliberate *(see, People v Brooks,*75 NY2d 898, 899, *mot to amend remittitur granted*76 NY2d 746; *People v Sanchez,*65 NY2d 436; *People v Comfort,*171 AD2d 1027). We have examined the remaining issues raised by defendant and find them to be lacking in merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Mark, J.—Criminal Possession Weapon, 2nd Degree.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Boomer, Green and Balio, JJ.
# C_2012326EN.01039301.xml

| 26.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/391 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/391

---

CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

TITLE II

FREEDOMS

FREEDOMS

Article 10

Freedom of thought, conscience and religion

1.   Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right includes freedom to change religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or in private, to manifest religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

2.   The right to conscientious objection is recognised, in accordance with the national laws governing the exercise of this right.

---
Order entered September 12, 2018

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-00426-CR

JAVEON DEROID DALCOURZUBER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F15-10957-J

ORDER

Before the Court is court reporter Kimberly Xavier’s September 11, 2018 request for 

additional time to file the reporter’s record. We GRANT the request and ORDER the reporter’s 

record due on or before September 26, 2018.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6576

LEVON SPAULDING, Petitioner - Appellant, versus CHARLES HILL, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (CA-95-395-5-BO) Submitted: June 20, 1996 Decided: July 9, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Levon Spaulding, Appellant Pro Se. Rebecca Kendrick Cleveland, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's dismissal without prejudice of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988) petition for failure to exhaust state remedies. Generally, dismissals without prejudice are not appealable, unless no amendment to the complaint could cure the defects in the plaintiff's case. Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392 , 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). We find that Appellant may be able to save this action through amendment. The district court dismissed Appellant's petition because it contained exhausted and unexhausted claims. See Rose v. Lundy , 455 U.S. 509, 519 (1982). Appellant may either exhaust all the claims in the petition and then refile his petition, or he may amend his petition by deleting any unexhausted claims and resubmitting the amended petition to the district court. Id. Thus, while the district court order here might be read to allow resubmission only after exhaustion, it appears that the order merely did not enumerate specifically all of Appellant's options. Because the order which Appellant seeks to appeal is not an appealable final order, we dismiss this portion of the appeal. See Domino Sugar Corp. , 10 F.3d at 1066-67. Appellant also appeals from the district court's order denying what he styled as a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversibleerror. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of this motion on the reasoning of the district court. Spaulding v. Hill , No. CA-95-395-5-BO3(E.D.N.C. Apr. 1, 1996). We deny Appellant's motions for appointment of counsel and for default judgment 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 IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF BENTHOS, INC. CONTAINED ELSEWHERE IN THIS
REGISTRATION STATEMENT AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS:
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                        $751,357
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,519,142
<ALLOWANCES>                                   127,000      
<INVENTORY>                                  3,551,258
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,407,796
<PP&E>                                       5,558,933
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,567,862
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,613,944
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,477,359
<BONDS>                                        824,242
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        67,150
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,245,193
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,613,944
<SALES>                                     11,722,807
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            11,722,807
<CGS>                                        5,392,021
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,732,848
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               665,249
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                56,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             105,420
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,837,334
<INCOME-TAX>                                   666,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,171,334
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,171,334
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.34
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.34
        

</TABLE>