alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
      32.1








CERTIFICATION
      OF DISCLOSURE PURSUANT TO


18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








I,
      Jake Wei, Chief Executive  Officer of Greater China Media and
      Entertainment Corp.,


certify  pursuant  to
      18 U.S.C.  Section  1350 as enacted by
      Section  906 of the


Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, that:





(1)
      the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the annual period ended


September
      30, 2007 (the "Periodic Report") which this statement accompanies
      fully


complies
      with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities


Exchange
      Act of 1934; and





(2)
      information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in
      all


material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Greater China
      Media and Entertainment Corp.






Greater
                China Media and Entertainment Corp.Date
                  January 15, 2008
              By:
              /s/  Jake
                WeiName Jake
                WeiTitle   Chief
                Executive Officer


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 Greater China Media and Entertainment
      Corp.
      and


will
      be  retained  by  Greater China Media and
      Entertainment Corp.  and  furnished  to
      the


Securities
      and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Blaine Bailey, Chief Financial Officer of Jet Gold Corporation (the Company) do hereby 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.

This Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the period ended August 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (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 28, 2007



/s/  Blaine Bailey

Blaine Bailey,

Chief Financial Officer













#
#### COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. Harry S. BLUMENTHAL, Respondent.

No. 355.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

June 28, 1937.

James W. Morris, Asst. Atty. Gen., Sewall Key, Sp. Asst, to the Atty. Gen., and Warner W. Gardner, of Washington, D. C., for petitioner.

Solomon Eisner and Harry L. Nair, both of Hartford, Conn., for respondent.

Before MANTON, SWAN, and CHASE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Decision affirmed.
Exhibit
32.08














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 South Carolina Electric & Gas
Company (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q, as amended, for the quarter ended June 30,
2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the “Report”), I certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
ss. 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:
      September 19, 2005/s/Kevin
      B. MarshKevin
      B. MarshSenior
      Vice President and Chief Financial 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.
#### In the Matter of Sylvia M., Respondent, v Marvin W., Appellant.

In a paternity proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 5, the appeal is from (1) an order of filiation of the Family Court, Kings County (Rood, H.E.), dated June 9, 1989, which adjudged Marvin W., to be the father of the subject child, (2) an order of the same court, also dated June 9, 1989, which directed him to pay child support in the amount of $55 per week and support arrears in the amount of $440, (3) an order of the same court, also dated June 9, 1989, which directed an income deduction, and (4) an order of the same court (Sparrow, J.), dated July 10, 1989, which denied his objections to the aforementioned orders.

Ordered that the appeals from the three orders dated June 9, 1989, are dismissed as those orders were superseded by the order dated July 10, 1989; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated July 10, 1989, is affirmed, with costs.

Although the order of filiation is not appealable as of right, it may be reviewed on the appeal from the order dated July 10, 1989 *(see, Nancy V. v Raymond E. C.,*75 AD2d 599; *see also, Matter of Jane PP. v Paul QQ.,*64 NY2d 15).

The appellant’s claim that the Family Court failed to advise him of his right to a blood test *(see,*Family Ct Act § 532 [a]; *Matter of Costello v Timothy R.,*109 AD2d 933) is meritless. The record indicates that the appellant acknowledged, in writing, that he understood his rights, including his "right to blood tests to show that [he] [could] not be the father”, and nevertheless consented to waive them. The appellant’s conclusory and belated claim that he did not comprehend the clearly and simply written admonitions provided to him at the hearing does not furnish a basis for reversal. We have examined the appellant’s remaining contention and find it to be equally without merit. Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Lawrence and Ritter, JJ., concur.
September 21, 2015 

Dear Mr. Johnson: 

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition 

(Docket No. FAA-2015-2553). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) to process your petition. 

 Describe the aircraft make(s), model(s), and type(s) (i.e., fixed-wing, rotorcraft, 

lighter-than-air) for the proposed UAS operation. The description(s) should include the 

maximum weight (including payload). This information can be located in the 

aircraft manual(s). 

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at 

www.regulations.gov and submit any proprietary information to the FAA Headquarters or 

electronically via email to 333exemptions@faa.gov. If you want us to process your request any 

further, we must receive the information described above by 10/5/15. If we do not receive the 

information, we will close the docket without notifying you further. 

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-4712. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Brenda Robeson 

Program Analyst
Apr, 22, 2( 51AM lo, 1301 P. 2 

+ 

American 

Red Cross 

Bedford County 

100 E. Main St. 

Everell, PA 16637 

B14-652-9071 

fax 814-652-0192 

Blair County 

4100 5lh Ave. 

Alloona, PA 16602 

614-944-6146 

tax 814-944-1753 

Fulton County 

717-485-4055 

Huntingdon County 

609 Mifflin Sf. 

Hunlinfldon, PA 16652 

614-643-2610 

fax 614-643-6859 

Southern Alleghenies Chapter 

serving Bedford, Blair, Fulton and Hunlif)gdort counties 

OOT- OST- a^Oa ^ \i<4^A 

April 22, 2010 

Essential Air Service Division 

Office of Aviation Analysis 

U.S. Depai'tment of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Attn: Dennis J. DeVany, Chief 

Deal* Mr. DeVany: C"? 

We are pleased with the service provided by Colgan Air between AltoonaJohnstown-Dullas and welcome any addition to the services. In particular, the 

local chapter of the American Red Cross would like to see the addition of 

Charter Air Transport. We feel this service would enhance Red Cross ability 

to respond to state and national emergency disasters in rapid deployment time. 

In the past, the Red Cross had deployed personnel to various parts of the state 

of Pennsylvania and the nation. The deployment being stalled by long waits 

at various airports for cormecting flights resulted in loss of man-power and 

timely emergency services to victims of disasters. 

Your consideration in this matter is deeply appreciated. 

Sincerely, 

C.J. Terrana 

Interim Emergency Services Director 

Southern Alleghenies Chapter 

4100 Fifth Avenue 

Altoona, PA 16602 

FIX FAX: 1.202.366.7638
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                          0000078716
<NAME>                                         PIONEER HI-BRED 
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000,000
<CURRENCY>                                     USD
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              AUG-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 SEP-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAY-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         63
<SECURITIES>                                   221
<RECEIVABLES>                                  587
<ALLOWANCES>                                   26
<INVENTORY>                                    414
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1,326
<PP&E>                                         1,080
<DEPRECIATION>                                 513
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2,013
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          479
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       279
<OTHER-SE>                                     1,120
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2,013
<SALES>                                        1,698
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1,698
<CGS>                                          831
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  831
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               420
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             9
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                485
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (166)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            319
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   319
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  1.36
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  1.26
        


</TABLE>
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).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RUSILA VAKASEREIMUDU

SEVUDREDRE,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-75172

Agency No. A098-158-796

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 29, 2010** 

Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

Rusila Vakasereimudu Sevudredre, a native and citizen of Fiji, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of

FILED

JUL 09 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-75172

removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual

findings, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009), and we deny the

petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Sevudredre’s asylum

claim because the harm she suffered, including threats and a robbery, does not rise

to the level of past persecution, and because she failed to demonstrate an objective

basis for her fear of future persecution. See Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 339-40

(9th Cir. 1995); see also Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003).

Because Sevudredre did not establish eligibility for asylum, it necessarily

follows that she did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of

removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006). 

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because

Sevudredre did not demonstrate that it is more likely than not she would be

tortured by government officials, or with their acquiescence, if returned to Fiji. See

Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1068. Sevudredre’s contentions that the agency failed to

meaningfully address her CAT claim and that it applied an erroneous legal

standard are belied by the record. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
|                                                              
|--------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                              
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                
|View History: Annual                                          
|View History: Annual                                          
|View History:                                                 
|                                                              
|Arkansas Shale Proved Reserves Extensions (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                              
|                                                              
|Arkansas Shale Proved Reserves Extensions (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                              

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 4,441 
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 3,014  | 2,073  | 1,370  | 3,381  | 1,483  | 238    | --     | --     | --     | --    
|2020's                                                                                                                            | --     | --     |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
Filed 4/24/13 P. v. Caylor CA2/6 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS 

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication 

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT 

DIVISION SIX 

THE PEOPLE, 

 Plaintiff and Respondent, 

v. 

VINCENT ORLANDO CAYLOR, 

 Defendant and Appellant. 

2d Crim. No. B240882 

(Super. Ct. No. 2011031647) 

(Ventura County) 

 Vincent Orlando Caylor appeals from the judgment entered after he pleaded 

guilty to possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)) and 

admitted he had one prior strike conviction (Pen. Code §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, 

subds. (a)-(d)) and four prior prison term allegations (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)). 

Appellant entered a negotiated plea after the court denied his motion to suppress 

evidence. (Pen. Code, § 1538.5.) The trial court struck appellant’s prior strike 

conviction, suspended imposition of sentence, and placed him on formal probation for 36 

months, with various terms and conditions. 

 On September 1, 2011, at 12:43 p.m., Port Hueneme Police Officers saw 

appellant fidgeting and twitching as he walked across the street. The officers followed 

him into a nearby parking lot and questioned him. Appellant’s constricted pupils, red 

watery eyes, missing front teeth, and the chemical odor of his breath indicated he was 

under the influence of methamphetamine. At the officers’ request, appellant briefly 
2 

closed his eyes; he had eyelid tremors. During a pat-down search, one of the officers 

found a glass methamphetamine pipe and crystal methamphetamine in appellant’s pants 

pockets. 

 We appointed counsel to represent appellant on appeal. Counsel filed a 

brief raising no issues and requesting our independent review pursuant to People v. 

Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. We notified appellant that he had 30 days in which to 

advise us of any claims he wished us to consider. We have received no response from 

appellant. 

 We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that appellant’s 

attorney has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. 

(People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 123-124 ; People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 

441.) 

DISPOSITION 

 The judgment is affirmed. 

 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED 

 PERREN, J. 

We concur: 

 GILBERT, P.J. 

 YEGAN, J. 
3 

Bruce A. Young, Judge 

Superior Court County of Ventura 

______________________________ 

 Lyn A. Woodward , under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for 

Defendant and Appellant. 

 No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
|                                                                                          
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                          
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                            
|View History: Annual                                                                      
|View History: Annual                                                                      
|View History:                                                                             
|                                                                                          
|Louisiana - North Dry Natural Gas Reserves Extensions and Discoveries (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                          
|                                                                                          
|Louisiana - North Dry Natural Gas Reserves Extensions and Discoveries (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                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        | 1,820  | 5,697  | 6,060  | 2,793 
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 5,105  | 3,857  |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
Martin, Michael (OST)

From: Sent: To: Subject: James Bernard <jbernard@co.del-norte.ca.us> Friday, April 04, 2014 1:16 PM Martin, Michael (OST); David Finigan CEC EAS

CEC would prefer aTWO year deal. We are a small airport,of 5000 ftrunways, that could be left with NO service. Should the airlines upgrade aircraft type to aCRJ.

-- Jim Bernard Airport Director Del Norte County Regional Airport 150Dale Rupert Road Crescent City, CA.95531 707-464-7288 707-407-6113(cell)

1 :'';';

}.>
#### PIERCE v. STATE.

No. 24999.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Nov. 22, 1950.

*58No attorneys for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Commissioner.

Upon his plea of guilty before the court to the charge of theft of an automobile of the value of one thousand dollars, appellant was assessed punishment at confinement in the penitentiary for a term of four years.

No bills of exception or statement of facts accompany the record.

In passing sentence, the trial court failed to apply the provisions of the indeterminate sentence law. The sentence is reformed so as to fix appellant’s punishment at not less than two nor more than four years’ confinement in the penitentiary.

As so reformed, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the court.
**CERTIFICATION OF**

**CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND**

**CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

In connection with the accompanying Yearly Report on Form 10-KSB of 51149, Inc. for the year ending December 31, 2005, I, George Gitschel, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of 51149, Inc. hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:

 
| 1.     | Such Yearly Report of Form 10-KSB for the year ending December 31,2005, 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 such Yearly Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2005, fairly represents in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of 51149, Inc. |

 
| Date: May 15, 2006                                                |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                              |
| **51149, INC.******                                               |
|                                                              |
| By: /s/ George Gitschel                                           |
| George Gitschel

Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer |