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 Quarterly  Report of Soyo Group,  Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the  Securities and
Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  the  undersigned,  Ming
Tung Chok,  Chief  Executive  Officer of the Company  certifies,  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.


 /s/ Ming Tung Chok
-----------------------
Ming Tung Chok
Chief Executive Officer
May 15, 2008
Writ of Mandamus Conditionall Cranted in part, l)enied iii part: Opinion issued

November 30, 2012.

/

In The

(!tuirt tif Api1cahi

FiftIi Jiitrirt uf rxa at 1atIa!5

No. 05-12-01518-CV

IN RE SHANNON WHALEY, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 68th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 10-14604

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Bridges. Lang, and Fillmore

Opinion by Justice Lang

Relator filed this mandamus proceeding after the trial court issued an order granting a new

trial on the issue of real party in interest’s attorneys’ fees “in light of a verdict in its favor.” We

conclude the trial court abused its discretion and relator has no adequate remedy by appeal. See

Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839—40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). We therefore

conditionally grant the writ of mandamus in part.

Trial courts must state specific reasons for refusing to renderjudgment on ajury verdict and

granting a new trial, and the failure to do so is correctable by writ of mandamus. In re columbia

Med. Ctr., 290 S.W.3d 204, 212—15 (Tex. 2009) (orig. proceeding). A general statement such as “in

the interest ofjustice” does not meet the specificity requirement, In re United Scaffolding, Inc., 301

S.W.3d 661, 662 (Tex. 2010) (orig. proceeding). The trial court’s statement, “in light of a verdict
in its favor,’ similarly does not suffice as an explanation for disregarding the lurys verdict and

ordering a new trial. However, we disagree with relator’s contention that the trial court is required

to vacate or set aside its order. See In re Hunter, 306 S.W.Sd 422,423 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2010, orig.

proceeding) (directing trial court to issue an order specifying reasons for granting new trial).

Accor(lingly, we conditionally grant relator’s petition for writ of mandamus in part. We

direct the trial court to issue an order speci lying its reasons for ordering a new trial within thirty (lays.

A writ will issue only in the event the trial court fails to comply. We deny the petition for writ of

mandamus to the extent that relator seeks to have the order granting a new trial set aside and

judgment rendered on the jury verdict, and to have this Court determine relator’s reasonable

attorneys’ fees and costs.

/ / /

DOUç4S S. LANG /

JUSTE

l2l5l8F.P05
#### David JACKSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 31016.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 11, 1959.

R. E. Murphey, Coleman, for appellant.

Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

WOODLEY, Judge.

The complaint and information charged the sale of vodka and wine in a dry area.

Trial was by jury and the judgment of conviction appealed from is upon the following verdict:

> “We, the jury find the defendant: Guilty of the offense as charged in the information and assess his penalty at $500.00 fine or/and six months confinement in the County Jail.”

The charge submitted to the jury the punishment provided for the offense charged, namely, a fine of not less than $100 nor more than $1,000, or by imprisonment in jail not to exceed one year, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

The verdict returned by the jury and received and ordered entered of record is insufficient to sustain the court’s judgment for the recovery of a fine of $500 and for the imprisonment of the defendant for six months. It is obvious that the verdict is uncertain as to what punishment the jury intended to assess. Allen v. State, 138 Tex.Cr.R. 303, 136 S.W.2d 232; Cobb v. State, 139 Tex.Cr.R. 337, 139 S.W.2d 272; James v. State, 139 Tex.Cr.R. 208, 139 S.W.2d 587.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
Exhibit 32.3




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, as principal financial officer of SMTC Corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify that to the undersigned’s knowledge:




1) the Company’s quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended July 1, 2012 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 Company’s quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended July 1, 2012 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





/s/ Alex WalkerAlex WalkerInterim Chief Financial Officer




Date: August 10, 2012




A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to SMTC Corporation and will be retained by SMTC Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
## EMBRY-RIDDLE Aeronautical University DAYTONA BEACH, FLORIDA

U.S. Department ofTransportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590 

### Requestfor Exemption: 14 CFR Part 141 Appendix I 4 U)(2)(i-iv) Dear Sir/Madam, Flight Department Tel: 386-226-6837 Fax: 386-226-6274

April 30, 2013

Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University (ERAU) requests an exemption from the Commercial Pilot Additional Class Rating aeronautical experience requirements of 14 CFR Part 141 Appendix I 4 

# m (2)(ii) which requires an applicantto have; 10 hours offlight training in an airplane thathas retractable gear, flaps, and a controllable pitch propeller, or is turbine powered. ERAU bases.this request on the fact that ifstudents complete a Commercial PilotAdditional Class Rating under Part61.63 (c)(3) there is no such requirement for the aforementioned aeronautical experience. The·Prq.ctical Test Standards for Commercial Pilot do notrequire testing in a complex aircraft for·an Additional Class**~ating;** ifthe applicant currentlyholds a Commercial Pilot certificate with a single-engine or multiengine class rating. Additionally, all students enrolling in this course will have completedtraining for an initial Commercial Pilot Certificate in the Diamond DA-42. Each studentwill have at least 27 hours ofmulti-engine complex flight time. Grantingthis exemption request would have a positive economic impact on ERAU and its students. The studentwould realize the cost savings through a reduction in hourly rate differences charged for training time in a non-complex versus a complex aircraft, along with a reduction in the total number oftraininghours required. " ERAU offers that the granting ofthis exemption request will have no negative impact on any entity involved in the training ofpilots. Sincerely,

# ~··· .:····. Embry-Riddle AeronautiG:al University ChiefFlight Instructor. ; ... ··. · ., ... ,. grauiva@erau.edu: : .**~c.** ' .. 386-226-6993.· ., ; "

.... , .. ,

. : _;·_.· .,.: 

## ...... .

. ,. 'J '' I ••! . ;.. 

## : ·'· .·i ...

. ' ; ;**~** ( . .

,. "··

.. /:
; :• . '.;- . 600 S. Clyde Morris Blvd. Daytona Beach, FL 32114-3900 embryriddle.edu
SERVED: FEBRUARY 12, 2013 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

- AERO-WELD, INC. 

Respondent 

FAA DOCKET NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Proceeding) 

FDMS NO: F AA-2012-0909 

ORDER REASSIGNING PROCEEDING 

In compliance with our order, 1 Complainant Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 

Federal Aviation Administration, filed and served the Complaint by first-class mail on February 

5, 2013? Complainant requests that the hearing be held in or near San Antonio, Texas, where 

Respondent apparently is located.3 

In the interest of judicial efficiency, the above-captioned proceeding is reassigned from 

the undersigned to Administrative Law Judge Richard C. Goodwin. All future pleadings and 

other communications regarding this proceeding shall be served on the Judge, the FAA Hearing 

Docket, and the other persons on the attached Service List. 

SO ORDERED. 

Attachment - Service List 

1 Notice of Assignment and Order of Chief Administrative Law Judge Denying Motion to Dismiss Request for 

Hearing (Jan. 31, 2013). 2 Complaint at 4 (Feb. 5, 20 13) ("Certificate of Service"). 3 !d.; Transmittal Letter (Feb. 5, 2013). 

00 

... .... · 
SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2Wl0004 

ONE COPY 

JeffreyS. Ruth, Respondent's Representative 

Aero-Weld, Inc., Respondent 

433 Breesport 

San Antonio, TX 78216 

TEL: 210-590-7888 

FAX: 210-366-2618 

Yolanda Ayala Bernal, Complainant's Counsel 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

Southwest Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663 

Fort Worth, TX 76193-0007 

TEL: 817-222-5070 

FAX: 817-222-5945/5092 

FDMS No. FAA-2012-0909 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 

202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

4 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in perso or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, .W., Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2Wl000, Washington, 

DC 20591, Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC- 30. 

-2-
#### The State of Ohio, Appellee, *v.*Price, Appellant.

(No. 27398

Decided February 8, 1939.)

*Mr. Frank T. Gullitan,*prosecuting attorney, and *Mr. Neil W. McGill,*for appellee.

*Mr. Louis Fernberg*and *Messrs. Busbnell, Burgess, Fulton <& Chandler,*for appellant.

It is ordered and adjudged that said appeal as of right be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the reason no debatable constitutional question is involved in said cause.

*Appeal dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Day, Zimmerman, Williams, Myers, Matthias and Hart, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1399 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1399

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently extend and 
 expand the additional standard deduction for real property taxes for 
                             nonitemizers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 6, 2011

   Mr. Grimm (for himself and Mr. Bishop of New York) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently extend and 
 expand the additional standard deduction for real property taxes for 
                             nonitemizers.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Homeowner Tax Fairness Act of 
2011''.

SEC. 2. PERMANENT EXTENSION AND EXPANSION OF ADDITIONAL STANDARD 
              DEDUCTION FOR REAL PROPERTY TAXES FOR NONITEMIZERS.

    (a) Permanent Extension.--Subparagraph (C) of section 63(c)(1) of 
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``in the case 
of any taxable year beginning in 2008 or 2009,''.
    (b) Removal of Dollar Limitation.--Paragraph (7) of section 63(c) 
of such Code is amended to read as follows:
            ``(7) Real property tax deduction.--For purposes of 
        paragraph (1), the real property tax deduction is equal to the 
        amount allowable as a deduction under this chapter for State 
        and local taxes described in section 164(a)(1). Any taxes taken 
        into account under section 62(a) shall not be taken into 
        account under this paragraph.''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2009.
                                 <all>
```
#### The STATE of Texas et al., Appellants, v. TRANSCONTINENTAL GAS PIPE LINE CORPORATION, Appellee.

No. 10418.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Austin.

June 27, 1956.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 8, 1956.

John Ben Shepperd, Atty. Gen., W. V. Geppert, L. P. Lollar, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellants.

James B. Henderson, William M. Rice, Pat F. Timmons, Fulbright, Crooker, Freeman, Bates & Jaworski, Austin C. Wilson, Houston, for appellee.

GRAY, Justice.

This appeal by the State is from a judgment awarding appellee Transcontinental Pipe Line Corporation a recovery of $50,-547.99 paid under the provisions of Art. 7057f, Vernon’s Ann.Civ.St., and commonly referred to as the Gas Gathering Tax Statute. This statute has been declared unconstitutional. Michigan-Wisconsin Pipe Line Co. v. Calvert, 347 U.S. 157, 74 S.Ct. 396, 98 L.Ed. 583.

The taxes were paid without protest. Art. 7057b, Vernon’s Ann.Civ.St.

The suit was instituted pursuant to a concurrent resolution of the Legislature granting appellee permission to sue the State.

Appellee based its suit for recovery on the ground that the taxes were paid under duress. It alleged that :

> “Plaintiff was required to pay the tax for the month of September, 1951 sued for herein and paid the same under duress so that it could continue to operate its business of receiving and transmitting natural gas in interstate commerce, and so that it could:

> (1) Avoid liability for penalties and interest;

> (2) prevent the filing of a suit by the Attorney General against plaintiff for an injunction;

> (3) prevent the fixation of a lien *on*plaintiff’s properties and a suit for foreclosure of such lien; and

> (4) avoid the expenses of an audit,

> each and all of which several coercions, acts and consequences were authorized by said' illegal and unconstitutional Article 7057f in the event that plaintiff did not pay such tax.”

The questions here presented are essentially the same as were presented in State v. Tennessee Gas Transmission Co., Tex.Civ.App., 289 S.W.2d 309, application *827for writ of error pending, decided by this Court April 4, 1956. Except for the question of interest which is not presented here, our decision supra was grounded on State v. Akin Products Co., Tex., 286 S.W.2d 110, *112,*wherein the Court said:

> “The controlling fact in this case is that these taxes have been paid under the duress of an unconstitutional Act. They should therefore be refunded regardless of what industry may have been benefited by *them.”*

No useful purpose would be served by a discussion of the points here presented. They must be and are decided in accordance with the decisions supra and we deem it sufficient to here refer to those opinions in lieu of any further discussion of or further quotes from them.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
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 Amendment No. 5 to Annual Report of Apollo Solar Energy, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his 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.







/s/Jingong Pan


Jingong Pan


Chief Executive Officer and Chairman


April 5, 2011





/s/ Wilson Liu


Wilson Liu


Chief Financial Officer


April 5, 2011







A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Apollo Solar Energy Inc. and will be retained by Apollo Solar Energy, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 478 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 478

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow the taxable sale or 
use, without penalty, of dyed diesel fuel with respect to recreational 
                                boaters.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

            February 27 (legislative day, February 22), 1995

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow the taxable sale or 
use, without penalty, of dyed diesel fuel with respect to recreational 
                                boaters.

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

SECTION 1. PENALTY-FREE TAXABLE SALE OR USE OF DYED DIESEL FUEL WITH 
              RESPECT TO RECREATIONAL BOATERS.

    (a) In General.--Section 6714 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
(relating to dyed fuel sold for use or used in taxable use, etc.), as 
added by section 13242(b)(1) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act 
of 1993, is amended by redesignating subsections (c) and (d) as 
subsections (d) and (e), respectively, and by inserting after 
subsection (b) the following new subsection:
    ``(c) Exception.--No penalty shall be imposed under subsection (a) 
on any person who--
            ``(1) sells or holds for sale dyed fuel for use in, or uses 
        dyed fuel in, any diesel-powered boat, and
            ``(2) pays the tax imposed on such sale or use under 
        section 4041(a)(1)(A).''.
    (b) Technical Amendments.--
            (1) Part II of subchapter B of chapter 68 of the Internal 
        Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by redesignating section 6714 
        (relating to dyed fuel sold for use or used in taxable use, 
        etc.), as added by section 13242(b)(1) of the Omnibus Budget 
        Reconciliation Act of 1993, as section 6715.
            (2) The table of sections for such part is amended by 
        redesignating the item relating to section 6714 (relating to 
        dyed fuel sold for use or used in taxable use, etc.), as added 
        by section 13242(b)(2) of such Act, as section 6715.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall take 
effect as if included in the amendments made by section 13242(b) of the 
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1283 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1283

To amend title 10, United States Code, to eliminate the per-fiscal year 
 calculation of days of certain active duty or active service used to 
reduce the minimum age at which a member of a reserve component of the 
         uniformed services may retire for non-regular service.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 31, 2011

Mr. Latham (for himself, Mr. Boren, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Walz of Minnesota, 
    Mr. Ryan of Ohio, Mr. McKinley, Mr. Loebsack, Mr. Sablan, Mrs. 
Blackburn, Mr. Kissell, Mr. Fortenberry, Ms. Sutton, Ms. Bordallo, Mr. 
    Holt, and Mr. Cuellar) introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 10, United States Code, to eliminate the per-fiscal year 
 calculation of days of certain active duty or active service used to 
reduce the minimum age at which a member of a reserve component of the 
         uniformed services may retire for non-regular service.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Reserve Retirement Deployment Credit 
Correction Act''.

SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF PER-FISCAL YEAR CALCULATION OF DAYS OF CERTAIN 
              ACTIVE DUTY OR ACTIVE SERVICE TO REDUCE ELIGIBILITY AGE 
              FOR RETIREMENT FOR NON-REGULAR SERVICE.

    (a) Effect of 90-Day Periods of Service.--Section 12731(f)(2)(A) of 
title 10, United States Code, is amended by striking ``below 60 years 
of age by three months for each aggregate of 90 days on which such 
person so performs in any fiscal year after such date, subject to 
subparagraph (C)'' and inserting ``, subject to subparagraph (C), below 
60 years of age by three months for each aggregate of 90 days on which 
such person serves on such active duty or performs such active service 
after such date''.
    (b) Retroactive Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection 
(a) shall take effect as of January 28, 2008, and as if included in the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 
110-181) as enacted.
                                 <all>
```