alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.1
 
 CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of PVH Corp. (the “Company”) for the fiscal year ended February 2, 2020 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Emanuel Chirico, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:
 
 (i)the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 
 (ii)the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 
 Dated: April 1, 2020
 
 By:/s/ Emanuel ChiricoName:Emanuel ChiricoChairman and Chief 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.
EXHIBIT 99.1

                        CERTIFICATION
   PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
   (SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF
                  TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE)

    Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18,
United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of PR
Specialists, Inc. (the "Company"), does hereby certify with respect to
the quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-QSB for the quarter
ended September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the "10-QSB Report") that:

    (1)   The 10-QSB 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 10-QSB Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.

Dated:  December 20, 2002


                           /s/ Lawrence Ruden
                        --------------------------
			Lawrence Ruden,
                        Chief Operating Officer
                        PR Specialists, Inc.
#### Henry L. WEIST, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27063.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 6, 1954.

No attorney on appeal.

Ewing Werlein, Dist. Atty., King C. Haynie, Asst. Dist. Atty., Houston, Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Presiding Judge.

The offense is burglary; the penalty assessed is confinement in the penitentiary for a period of two years.

Appellant entered a plea of guilty to the court of the offense charged in the indictment. The record is before this court without bills of exception, a statement of facts, or a brief for the appellant. In the absence thereof, no question is presented for review.

The judgment of the trial court is therefore affirmed, and no motion for rehearing will be entertained in this appeal.
---

EXHIBIT 32.1

MADISON EXPLORATIONS, INC. 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 Annual Report of Madison Explorations,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2008 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Joseph Gallo, Chief Executive Officer and Director 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, to my 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.

Date: April 10, 2009

| | By: | /s/ Joseph Gallo                          
| | --- | ------------------------------------------
| |     | Joseph Gallo                              
| |     | Chief Executive Officer and
      Director

---
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATION


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350


(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)




In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Pervasip Corp. (the "Company") for the quarter ended August 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Paul H. Riss, as Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial 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, 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 Registrant.








Date:           October 20, 2010                                                              By:  /s/ Paul H. Riss


Paul H. Riss


Chief Executive Officer and


Chief Financial 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.
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10
- 19
- 00051
- CV IN THE ESTATE OF JANICE LEE WILHELM, DECEASED

From the 369th District Court Leon County, Texas Trial Court No. O- 12
- 00012

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellants Howard Wayne Farmer and Jennifer Christine Davis and Appellee
Christine Bain have filed an “A greed M otion to D ismiss with P rejudice. ” The parties

state that “[a] ll matters of fact and things in controversy between all of the Parties have been fully and finally compromised and settled by the Parties.” Appellants therefore request that we dismiss with prejudice all claims th at have been or could have been brought by them against Appellee, and Appellee requests that we dismiss with prejudice all claims that have been or could have been brought by her against Appellants. The parties then request that we dismiss this appeal and tax costs against the party incurring

same.In re Estate of Wilhelm Page 2 We have no authority to dismiss the suit in the trial court and, at the same time, dismiss the appeal. We have the authority, however, to vacate the trial court’s judgment
and then dismiss the case by agreement of the parties. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(2)(A); 43.2(e); Young Materials Corp. v. Smith , 4 S.W.3d 84, 84

– 85 (Tex. App.

— Waco 1999, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.); see also Garcia v. Meece , No. 10

- 19

- 00052

- CV, 2020 WL 1809466, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Waco Apr. 8, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op.). Accordingly, the parties’ “Agreed Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice” is granted to the extent authorized. The trial court’s Order signed on February 1, 2019, is vacated, and the case is dismissed with prejudice. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(2)(A); 43.2(e). Costs of appeal are taxed against the party incurring same. Because the Court was unable to grant the entirety of the parties’ motion, the Court has endeavored to implement the substance of the parties’ agre ed motion to achieve the same result. If the parties determine that the judgment of the Court does not accomplish the parties’ intended result, a timely motion for rehearing must be filed that addresses the manner in which the Court can implement the agre ement of the parties within the limitations of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. See id. R. 42.1; 49.1.

MATT JOHNSON Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Johnson , and Justice Smith Vacated and dismissedIn re Estate of Wilhelm Page 3 Opinion delivered and filed July 20, 2022 [CV 06 ]
#### PALMA v. STATE.

No. 26671.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 2, 1953.

Clay Coggins, Roby, for appellant.

Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Commissioner.

The information charged in one count the unlawful sale of whisky and beer to A. Clark, and in another count charged the unlawful sale of beer to R. M. Barber, each' sale alleged to have been made on February 12, 1953, in Nolan County, a dry area.

There is no question but that the state was authorized to include in one information separate counts charging the appellant with separate and distinct misdemeanors. Gould v. State, 66 Tex.Cr.R. 421, 147 S.W. 247; Abston v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 253 S.W.2d 41.

Appellant' appears to recognize the correctness of the rule stated but insists that the two sales alleged in the information grew out of and were part of the same transaction and that he therefore has been convicted of two offenses out of a single transaction.

The facts will determine this question.

■ Clark and Barber were undercover agents of the. Liquor Control Board. In the performance of their duties in enforcing the Liquor Control Act, they drove to what is referred to as the VFW Hall in Sweetwater about eleven o’clock at night. Clark testified that he approached appellant, who'was seated in his car, and asked him if he had any whisky. Upon appellant’s affirmative reply, Clark said he wanted a half-pint. Appellant sold him the half-pint for $2. Clark later púrchased from appellant three cans of beer, for which he paid $1. After Clark had completed his purchases, Barber also purchased from appellant three cans of beer, for which he paid $1.

The foregoing are the facts upon which the conviction rests.

Appellant did not testify.

Art. 666-4, Vernon’s P.C., makes it unlawful to sell intoxicating liquor in a dry area. Each separate sale of such liquor constitutes a violation of that statute. The case of Robinson v. State, 53 Tex.Cr.R. 565, 110 S.W. 908, is deemed in point.

The conclusion is expressed that the facts show separate and distinct sales in violation of law, for which the state was entitled to separately prosecute.

The jury returned two verdicts in this case. In the first, they found appellant guilty as charged in count No. 1 of the information and assessed his punishment at a fine of $100 and three months in jail. In the other, they found appellant guilty as charged in count No. 2 and assessed his punishment at a fine of $100 and three months in jail.

The judgment entered set out the two verdicts and adjudged appellant to be guii*487ty of selling whisky and beer in a dry area, as charged in count No. 1 of the information, and of the sale of beer in a dry area as charged in count No. 2, and further adjudging that the State of Texas recover the sum of $200 fine and costs and providing for appellant’s commitment to jail for six months and until the fine and costs are paid.

The judgment effectively cumulated the two jail terms of three months each, and is in the form approved by this court in Absten v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 253 S.W.2d 41.

The judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1 CERTIFICATE 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 on Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2004 of XO Communications, Inc. (the Company), as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Carl J. Grivner, 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 to the best of my knowledge:  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
or 78o(d)); and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company. Date: May 10, 2004 /s/   Carl J. GrivnerCarl J. GrivnerChief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer) 31
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

 No. 07-7717 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

LARRY GENE THOMPSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Graham C. Mullen,

Senior District Judge. (5:91-cr-00052-GCM-3; 5:07-cv-00120-GCM)

Submitted: February 28, 2008 Decided: March 10, 2008 

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Larry Gene Thompson, Appellant Pro Se. David Alan Brown, OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Larry Gene Thompson seeks to appeal the district court’s

order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion.

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)

(2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Thompson has

not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Thompson’s

motion to vacate the district court’s decision, deny a certificate

of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. 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. 

DISMISSED
|                                                                                                         
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                         
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                           
|View History: Annual                                                                                     
|View History: Annual                                                                                     
|View History:                                                                                            
|                                                                                                         
|Nebraska Nonassociated Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation, Reserves Adjustments (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                         
|                                                                                                         
|Nebraska Nonassociated Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation, Reserves Adjustments (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                         

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        | 7      | -3     | 0      |        |        |        |        | W      | -1    
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 1      |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
|                                                           
|-----------------------------------------------------------
|                                                           
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)             
|View History: Annual                                       
|View History: Annual                                       
|View History:                                              
|                                                           
|Texas Natural Gas Number of Oil Wells  (Number of Elements)
|                                                           
|                                                           
|Texas Natural Gas Number of Oil Wells  (Number of Elements)
|                                                           

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0  | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4  | Year-5  | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8  | Year-9 
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------- | ------- | ------ | ------ | ------- | -------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |         | 85,030 | 94,203 | 96,949 | 104,205 | 102,836 | 97,843 | 86,128 | 157,839 | 157,384
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 157,343 |        |        |        |         |         |        |        |         |        
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 5/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 6/28/2024
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2149 Engrossed in House (EH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2149

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 4354 Pahoa Avenue in Honolulu, Hawaii, as the ``Cecil L. Heftel Post 
                           Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. CECIL L. HEFTEL POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 4354 Pahoa Avenue in Honolulu, Hawaii, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Cecil L. Heftel Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Cecil L. 
Heftel Post Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 28, 2011.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
112th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 2149

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 4354 Pahoa Avenue in Honolulu, Hawaii, as the ``Cecil L. Heftel Post 
                           Office Building''.
```
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT



I, R. B. Harris,  Acting Financial Officer of Royal Holiday Mobile Estates ( the
"Company"),  certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

(1) the  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-QSB/A of the Company for the Quarter ended
June 30, 2002 (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 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.



Dated:    September 22, 2003





                         /s/ R. B. Harris
                         ----------------
                         R. B. Harris, Acting Financial Officer