alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit      No. 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;                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:                June 26, 2006  | By:                          | /s/ Roger                E.                Girard |
|                                     | Roger                E. Girard         |
|                                     | Chief                Executive Officer |
|   |
|--------|

----

| (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:              June 26, 2006 | By:                        | /s/ Michael              Dunlop |
|                             | Michael              Dunlop          |
|                             | Chief              Financial Officer |
Subject:

From: US.Departmentof Transportation OfficeoftheSecretary ofTransportation ,r I**·~,**

v

Essential Air Service at Pendleton, Oregon (DOT-OST

### 20!79934) /} {)

# ~ .

# ~tJ.DeVar0,~**~** EAS & Domestic Analysis Divisi/n, X-53 

# Memorandum

Date: September 19, 2012

Reply to Brian Swanson, Attn. of: X-53 Ext. 65392
To: Dockets Operations, M-30
By Order 2012-8-13, August 10,2012,the Department requested that air carriers submit proposals for Essential Air Service (EAS) at Pendleton by September 19, 2012. On September 14, 2012, SeaPort Airlines (SeaPort), the incumbent EAS carrier at the community, requested a two-week extension. Subsequentto receiving SeaPort's request, the airport manager at Pendleton indicatedthat the airport did not objectto the carrier's request. The Departmenthas decided to grant the two-week extension request to prepare proposals for EAS at Pendletonbecause the community does not object. Proposals for EAS at Pendleton should nowbe submitted no later than October 3, 2012.

AttachmentSwanson, Brian (OSn From: Sent: Larry Dalrymple <Larry.Dalrymple@ci.pendleton.or.us> Friday, September 14, 2012 12:24 PM To: Cc: Devany, Dennis (OST); rob@seaportair.com eas@seaportair.com; Swanson, Brian (OST) Subject: RE: Pendleton 

### Yes I am. Thanks Thanks, Larry Sentfrom mysmartphone -----Original message----- From: "Dennis.DeVany@dot.gov" <Dennis.DeVany@dot.gov> To: "rob@seaportair.com" <rob@seaportair.com> Cc: Larry Dalrymple <Larrv.Dalrvmple@ci.pendleton.or.us>, "eas@seaportair.com" <eas@seaportair.com>, "brian.swanson@dot.gov" <brian.swanson@dot.gov> Sent: Fri, Sep 14, 2012 16:16:07 GMT+OO:OO Subject: RE: Pendleton

OK. Larry, are you OK with the extension?? Dennis From: Rob McKinney fmailto:rob@seaportair.com] Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 12:03 PM To: Devany, Dennis (OST) Cc: Larry Dalrymple; eas@seaportair.com Subject: Pendleton Dennis, SeaPort Airlines requests a two week extension for submissions for air service for Pendleton, OR. Thanks, Rob

1
#### Ex parte Preston Alvin PUCKETT.

No. 29014.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 1, 1957.

*650No attorney for relator of record on appeal.

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

WOODLEY, Judge.

Relator, an inmate of the penitentiary, attacks as void the life sentence pronounced against him in El Paso County.

A prior application for discharge by relator was denied in Ex parte Puckett, 161 Tex.Cr.R. 51, 274 S.W.2d 696.

After relator had received credit for ten years on his sentence he again applied to this Court for writ of habeas corpus, which was denied by order dated January 31, 1957, as follows:

> “A reexamination of the record in the light of the application filed after relator was credited with ten years served on his sentence convinces us that the relator is attempting to have us pass upon the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his life sentence.

> “The indictment contained the allegation that the conviction in the New Mexico State Court on July 3, 1945, was final prior to the commission of the offense for which he was convicted in the United States District Court on September 26, 1947.

> “For this Court to look beyond these allegations, in all things regular on their face, and entertain proof at this time that such allegations were not based upon fact would be doing exactly what we have consistently held that we might not do; that is, pass upon the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction in a collateral habeas corpus proceeding.

> “The application is denied.”

A subsequent application was ordered filed and has been considered by all members of the Court, and the same conclusion has been reached.

In Ex parte Daniels, 158 Tex.Cr.R. 2, 252 S.W.2d 586, the indictment showed on its face that one of the prior felony convictions was not available for enhancement of punishment purposes. The holding is not here applicable, the allegations of the indictment under which relator was convicted being regular and sufficient.

There is no statement of facts before us and this is a collateral attack upon the conviction. The contention that in fact the New Mexico State conviction was not final prior to the commission of the offense which was the basis of the Federal Court conviction cannot now be sustained.

The application is denied.
EXHIBIT 32.1


CERTIFICATION


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350


(Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)





In connection with the Amendment No. 2 to the Annual Report on 10-K of Sen Yu International Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Zhenyu Shang, Chief Executive Officer of the company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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:  February 18, 2011





By:  /s/ Zhenyu Shang


Name: Zhenyu Shang


Title: Chief Executive Officer











This certification accompanies each Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the company for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.





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.








---
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1539 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                 Union Calendar No. 125
112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1539

                          [Report No. 112-196]

    To repeal section 939G of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and 
    Consumer Protection Act and to restore Securities and Exchange 
            Commission Rule 436(g) repealed by such section.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 14, 2011

  Mr. Stivers (for himself, Mr. Renacci, and Mr. Clarke of Michigan) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                           Financial Services

                            August 12, 2011

                    Additional sponsor: Mr. Garrett

                            August 12, 2011

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
                       and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To repeal section 939G of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and 
    Consumer Protection Act and to restore Securities and Exchange 
            Commission Rule 436(g) repealed by such section.

 

    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 ``Asset-Backed Market Stabilization 
Act of 2011''.

SEC. 2. RESTORATION OF RULE RELATING TO A CERTAIN EXEMPTION FOR RATING 
              AGENCIES.

    Effective as of the date of enactment of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street 
Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Public Law 111-203), section 939G 
of such Act is repealed, and the regulation repealed by such section is 
restored or revived as if such section had not been enacted.
                                                 Union Calendar No. 125

112th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 1539

                          [Report No. 112-196]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

    To repeal section 939G of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and 
    Consumer Protection Act and to restore Securities and Exchange 
            Commission Rule 436(g) repealed by such section.

_______________________________________________________________________

                            August 12, 2011

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
                       and ordered to be printed
```
#### Leo J. HAVERKAMP, Appellant, v. Arthur WILLINGHAM, Appellee.

No. 14990.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Dallas.

July 15, 1955.

Freels, Elliott & Nall, Sherman, for appellant.

Van Zandt & Sanford, Sherman, for ap-pellee.

DIXON, Chief Justice.

This appeal is from an order overruling a plea of privilege. Appellant sought to have the cause transferred to Cooke County, his place of residence.

The case is similar in many respects to Haverkamp v. Willingham Drilling Co., Tex.Civ.App., 281 S.W.2d 359. In the instant case however, Arthur Willingham, appellee, brought the suit individually as *363plaintiff for the alleged conversion by appellant in Grayson County of another storage tank owned by Willingham personally, not by the corporation. .

Here as in the other appeal, appellant’s only point is that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the court’s judgment.

In this case Arthur Willingham was the only witness. In substance he testified as he did in the other case: that appellant Haver-kamp told him he got the tank in question. But there is no evidence that the conversion, if there was one, took place in Grayson County. The evidence is so like that in the other appeal that we see no necessity for repeating it here. In our opinion it is insufficient to support a finding that the trespass took place in Grayson County.

The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the matter of appellant’s plea of privilege is remanded to the trial court for another hearing.

Reversed and remanded.
AGREEMENT TO EXTEND TERM OF PROMISSORY NOTE
 
 THIS AGREEMENT dated for reference 19 May 2003 is between Communicate.com Inc ., a Nevada corporation with a business office at Suite 600, 1100 Melville Street, Vancouver, BC, V6E 4A6 ("Communicate"); and Pacific Capital Markets Inc. , a British Columbia company with a business office at Suite 600, 1100 Melville Street, Vancouver, BC V6E 4A6 ("PCMI").
 
 BACKGROUND:
 
 A.      PCMI agreed to lend Communicate up to $1.5 million in November 2000. Communicate signed a demand promissory note in favour of PCMI to secure the entire amount of the loan. PCMI advanced a total of $400,000 under the loan agreement, all of it on 8 November 2000.
 B.      In May 2002, Communicate asked PCMI to change the note from a demand note to a term note. PCMI agreed to a one-year term ending 28 June 2003. as consideration for PCMIs agreeing to the term and consenting to the transfer to Communicate of a finders fee that Domain Holdings Inc. owed to PCMI in connection with an unrelated transaction, Communicate issued to PCMI two-year warrants exercisable for 2 million shares of Communicates common stock at $0.05 per share expiring 28 June 2004. C.     Communicate wants to extend the term of the promissory note by two years. D.      Communicate is up to date in its interest payments due under the note and has paid $25,000 on account of principal, leaving a principal balance owing to PCMI of $375,000. 
 IN CONSIERATION of $1 and the following mutual promises, the parties agree that:
 
 PCMI will extend the term of the promissory note for two years ending at 5:00 pm in Vancouver, British Columbia, on 28 June 2005. 
 Communciate will extend the exercise period of the warrants for one year ending 5:00 pm in Vancouver, British Columbia, on 28 June 2005. 
 All other terms and conditions of the note and the warrants remain effective. 
 THE PARTIES SIGNATURES below are evidence of their agreement.
 
 Communicate.com Inc.     Pacific Capital Markets Inc.
 
 
 
 
 
 /s/ David M. Jeffs
/s/ Rick Jeffs
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO.  2-08-343-CR

JEREMEY LEE	APPELLANT

	V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS	STATE

	------------

	FROM THE 372ND DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

	------------

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

	------------

	Appellant Jeremey Lee entered an open plea of guilty to one count of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon.  After the trial court heard testimony from the complainant, a courtroom deputy, Appellant, Appellant’s mother, and Appellant’s girlfriend, the trial court found Appellant guilty and sentenced him to forty years’ confinement.  

	Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and a brief in support of the motion.  In the brief, counsel avers that, in his professional opinion, this appeal is frivolous.  Counsel’s brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for appeal.2  We gave Appellant an opportunity to file a pro se brief, and Appellant filed a pro se brief that raises eight points.3  The State also filed a brief.4

	After an appellant’s court-appointed counsel files a motion to withdraw on the ground that the appeal is frivolous and fulfills the requirements of Anders, this court is obligated to undertake an independent examination of the record.  See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Mays v. State, 904 S.W.2d 920, 922–23 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1995, no pet.).  Only then may we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.  See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988).

	Because Appellant entered an open plea of guilty, our independent review for potential error is limited to potential jurisdictional defects, the voluntariness of Appellant’s plea, error that is not independent of and supports the judgment of guilt, and error occurring after entry of the guilty plea.  See Monreal v. State, 99 S.W.3d 615, 620 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003).

	We have carefully reviewed counsel’s brief, Appellant’s brief, the State’s brief, and the appellate record.  We agree with counsel that this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit; we find nothing in the record that arguably might support any appeal.  See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).  Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment.  

							PER CURIAM

PANEL: GARDNER, MCCOY, and MEIER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED:  November 25, 2009
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7414 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

BRYANT PIERRE BOONE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior

District Judge. (CR-96-21-A)

Submitted: January 26, 2006 Decided: February 2, 2006

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bryant Pierre Boone, Appellant Pro Se. Leslie Bonner McClendon,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Bryant Pierre Boone appeals the district court’s order

denying his motion for reconsideration of a prior order denying

relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition. We have reviewed

the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm

for the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v.

Boone, No. CR-96-21-A (E.D. Va. Aug. 22, 2005). We 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
Form of Common Stock Certificate (including English translation)



 Exhibit 4.1 
 Exhibit 4.1 
 

 
  
 STOCK
CERTIFICATELG.Philips LCD Co.,Ltd. 
 FIVE THOUSAND WON 
 ONE SHARE 
 1.
Corporate Name : LG.Philips LCD Co.,Ltd. 2. Date of Incorporation :February 27, 1985 3. Total Number of Shares Authorized : Four Hundred MillionShares 4. Par Value of Each Share : Five Thousand Won 5. Type of Shares: Common Shares in Registered Form
6. Date of Issuance : May 25, 2004 Thisis to certify that the person whose name appears on the certificate is theholder of ONE Shares of Common Stock of LG.Philips LCD Co., Ltd. as defined inthe Articles of Incorporation of the Company. 

LG.Philips LCD Co.,Ltd. Joint Representative Director / Vice Chairman and CEO Bon Joon KooJoint Representative Director / SEVP and CFO
Ron H. Wirahadiraksa
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

Acme Energy Services, Inc. d/b/a Big Dog 

Drilling, 

 

 Appellant,

v.

Sandra H. Staley, Individually as 

Independent Executrix of the Estate of 

George G. Staley, Deceased, and as 

Trustee of the Tax Free Trust for Sandra 

H. Staley,

 Appellees.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-17-00145-CV

Appeal from the

109th District Court

of Winkler County, Texas 

(TC# 15,681-B)

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the District Clerk’s request for an extension of time within which to 

file the Clerk’s Record until December 20, 2017. NO FURTHER REQUESTS FOR EXTENSION 

OF TIME TO FILE THE CLERK’S RECORD WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that Sherry Terry, District Clerk, for Winkler County, Texas 

prepare the Clerk’s Record, and forward the same to this Court on or before December 20, 2017.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 20th day of November, 2017.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez and Palafox, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 36 (Thursday, February 22, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 13310]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-03566]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[B-54-2023]


Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 26; Authorization of Production 
Activity; Helena Industries, LLC; (Insecticides); Cordele, Georgia

    On October 19, 2023, Helena Industries, LLC submitted a 
notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its 
facility within Subzone 26X, in Cordele, Georgia.
    The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations 
of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the Federal 
Register inviting public comment (88 FR 73309, October 25, 2023). On 
February 16, 2024, the applicant was notified of the FTZ Board's 
decision that no further review of the activity is warranted at this 
time. The production activity described in the notification was 
authorized, subject to the FTZ Act and the FTZ Board's regulations, 
including section 400.14.

    Dated: February 16, 2024.
Elizabeth Whiteman,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2024-03566 Filed 2-21-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P