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 Form 10-QSB of Worldwide Biotech & Pharmaceutical
      Company (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending March 31, 2007, as
      filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), I, Wenxia Guo, 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 and
      belief:





|(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 result of operations of the
              Company.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------







/s/
      Wenxia Guo


Wenxia
      Guo


Chief
      Executive Officer


May
      15,
      2007





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 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.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5428 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain women’s footwear. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 7, 2012 

Mr. HUELSKAMP introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain women’s 

footwear. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN WOMEN’S FOOTWEAR. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5428 IH

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Other footwear with outer 

soles and uppers of rubber 

or plastics, the foregoing 

for women, other than 

house slippers, work footwear, tennis shoes, basketball shoes, gym shoes, 

training shoes, and the like 

(provided for in subheading 6402.99.31) ......... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2015 ’’. 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Pursuant to the Administrative Policies and Procedures for Electronic Filing in 

Civil and Criminal Cases, the following pleading has been filed. However, it is 

deficient in the area(s) checked below. Please correct the deficiency(ies), as 

noted below, and re-file document IMMEDIATELY. When re-filing document, 

other than a motion, please ensure you add ‘corrected’ to the docket text. If 

the document you are re-filing is a motion, select ‘corrected’ from the dropdown list. 

If an erroneous filing results in failure to meet a deadline, you will need 

to seek relief, for any default, from the presiding judge. 

(1) Other

 Remarks: This action has to be accomplished via granting of a motion to extend time for filing. Please resubmit in

motion form.

United States District Court

Western District of Texas

Waco

Deficiency Notice

To:

From:

Date:

Re:

Graves, Philip J.

Court Operations Department, Western District of Texas

Monday, November 9, 2020

06:20-CV-00507-ADA / Doc # 30 / Filed On: 11/06/2020 08:56 PM CST

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 31 Filed 11/09/20 Page 1 of 1
Case 6:20-cv-00458-ADA Document 12 Filed 03/24/20 Page 1 of 2
Case 6:20-cv-00458-ADA Document 12 Filed 03/24/20 Page 2 of 2
##### 



Exhibit 31.1 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 I, Anthony W. Thompson, certify that: 1. I
have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of NNN 2002 Value Fund, LLC; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included
in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e), for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to
the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within
those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and
procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial
reporting; and 5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit
committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the
registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have
a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting. /s/   Anthony W. ThompsonAnthony W. ThompsonChief Executive Officer
Triple Net Properties, LLC,
the Manager of NNN 2002 Value Fund, LLC Date: August 1, 2005
EXHIBIT 31.1I, Jason Liddell, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports onForm 8-K containing distribution or servicing reports filed in respect ofperiods included in the year covered by this annual report, of Merrill LynchDepositor, Inc., on behalf of PreferredPLUS Trust Series VER-1;     2. Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as awhole, does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to statea material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading as of thelast day of the period covered by this annual report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing informationrequired to be provided to the depositor by the trustee under the pooling andservicing, or similar, agreement, for inclusion in these reports is included inthese reports;     4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by thedepositor and the trustee under the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreementand based upon my knowledge and the annual compliance review required under thatagreement, and except as disclosed in the reports, the depositor and trusteehave each fulfilled its obligations under that agreement; and     5. The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to thecompliance by the depositor or trustee with the minimum servicing or similarstandards based upon the report provided by an independent public accountant,after conducting a review in compliance with the Uniform Single AttestationProgram for Mortgage Bankers or similar procedure, as set forth in the poolingor servicing, or similar, agreement, that is included in these reports.     In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied oninformation provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: The Bank ofNew York and its officers and agents.        Date: March 26, 2007 /s/ Jason Liddell   Vice President
#### Ex parte HODGE.

No. 26487.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 27, 1953.

John Cutler, Houston, for appellant.

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

MORRISON, Judge.

This is an original application for a writ of habeas corpus brought by relator *324seeking- his release from the Texas Prison System.

The record reflects that relator was convicted in the District Court of Foard County and sentenced to two years’ confinement.

Thereafter, relator was convicted in the District Court of Moore County, where (he received a like term. The sentence in the Moore County case concludes with the following order:

> “It is further ordered by the court that this sentence shall not run concurrent to any other sentence or sentences against this defendánt.”

Such an order did not effectively cumu-late the two sentences.

We have been furnished with a certificate from the authorities of the Texas Prison System stating that if relator’s sentences are held to run concurrently, then he has served them.

The writ of habeas corpus is granted, and the relator is ordered discharged.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6934

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

NIGEL NICHOLAS DOUGLAS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District

Judge. (CR-93-131-2, CA-97-806-2)

Submitted: November 19, 1998 Decided: December 2, 1998

Before HAMILTON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nigel Nicholas Douglas, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Joseph Seidel,

Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58 and 79(a), the orders from

which Douglas appeals were entered on the district court’s docket

November 18, 1997, and May 20, 1998. See Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d

1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).

2

PER CURIAM:

Nigel Nicholas Douglas seeks to appeal the district court’s

orders denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A.

§ 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and

the district court’s opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Douglas’ motion for a certificate of appealability

and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See

United States v. Douglas, Nos. CR-93-131-2; CA-97-806-2 (E.D. Va.

Nov. 18, 1997; May 20, 1998).* 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
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2866 Engrossed Amendment Senate (EAS)]

                  In the Senate of the United States,

                                                     December 15, 2014.
    Resolved, That the bill from the House of Representatives (H.R. 
2866) entitled ``An Act to require the Secretary of the Treasury to 
mint coins in commemoration of the centennial of Boys Town, and for 
other purposes.'', do pass with the following

                               AMENDMENT:

            On page 7, strike lines 8 through 10, and insert the 
      following: ``shall be paid to the United States Treasury for the 
      purposes of reducing the national debt.''.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
113th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H.R. 2866

_______________________________________________________________________

                               AMENDMENT
```
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION








Pursuant to the requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. §1350),Bernard A. Hausen, M.D., Ph.D., Chief Executive Officer of Cardica, Inc. (the "Company"), and Robert Y. Newell, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies that, to the best of his or her knowledge:




1.
The Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended June 30, 2011, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the “Annual Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act, and




2.
The information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




In Witness Whereof, the undersigned have set their hands hereto as of the 12th day of September, 2011.







/s/Bernard A. Hausen

/s/ Robert Y. NewellBernard A. Hausen, M.D., Ph.D.

Robert Y. NewellChief Executive Officer

Chief Financial Officer


This certification accompanies the Form 10-K to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of Cardica, Inc. under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-K), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
The Department of Labor (DOL) has submitted the following public information collection requests (ICRs) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). A copy of each individual ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by calling the Department of Labor. To obtain documentation for BLS, ETA, PWBA, and OASAM contact Karin Kurz ((202) 219-5096 ext. 159 or by E-mail to Kurz-Karin@dol.gov). To obtain documentation for ESA, MSHA, OSHA, and VETS contact Darrin King ((202) 219-5096 ext. 151 or by E-Mail to King-Darrin@dol.gov).

                    Comments should be sent to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for BLS, DM, ESA, ETA, MSHA, OSHA, PWBA, or VETS, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503 ((202) 395-7316), within 30 days from the date of this publication in the                     **Federal Register.**

The OMB is particularly interested in comments which:

- evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
- evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
- enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
- minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

*Agency:*                     Employment Standards Agency (ESA).                

*Title:*                     Equal Opportunity Survey.                

*OMB Number:*                     1215-ONEW.                

*Frequency:*                     Annually.                

*Affected Public:*                     Business or other for-profit; Not-for-profit institutions; and State, Local or Tribal Government.                

*Number of Respondents:*                     60,000.                

*Estimated Time Per respondent:*                     12 hours.                

*Total Burden Hours:*                     720,000.                

*Total Annualized capital/startup costs:*                     $0.                

*Total annual costs (operating/maintaining systems or purchasing services):*                     $180,000.                

*Description:*                     Government contractors provide information on their personnel activities and the results of their affirmative efforts to employ and promote minorities and women. This information is used to select specifically identified contractors for compliance evaluations and technical assistance.                

Ira L. Mills,

Department Clearance Officer.

[FR Doc. 00-2654 Filed 2-3-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-45-M
#### TAGGART v. STATE.

No. 23251.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 16, 1946.

*729Jerry D’Unger, of Corpus Christi, for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

This is a conviction for murder, with punishment assessed at confinement in the State penitentiary for five years.

The State’s case was one of circumstantial evidence.

Appellant was first charged by complaint in the justice court with the murder. He was arrested and carried before the justice of the peace sitting as a magistrate in an examining court. Upon that hearing and after the complaint had been first read to him, appellant was warned by State’s counsel at the direction of the magistrate (a) that he could make a voluntary statement relative to ■the accusation if he so desired; (b) that any statement he might make would not be under oath; (c) that he did not have to make any statement at all; (d) that any statement he made would be without promise of reward or clemency on the part of the officers and might be used against him upon the trial of any charge then pending against him. Art. 247, C.C. P.

After such warning, the appellant made an oral statement, which was taken down in shorthand by a reporter and subsequently reduced to writing. The statement was incriminating and tended to connect appellant with the murder. The statement so made and reduced to writing was not signed by the appellant. The magistrate did not attest by his own certificate and signature to the execution and signing of the statement.

Upon the trial of this case, the statement was admitted in evidence over appellant’s objection that the requirement of Article 248, C.C.P., requiring that the statement be signed by the accused and attested by the magistrate certifying to the execution and signing of the statement, had not been complied with. The statement was subject to the objection urged and was inadmissible. Amayo v. State, 108 Tex.Cr.R. 346, 300 S.W. 935; Knighton v. State, 126 Tex.Cr.R. 436, 72 S.W.2d 602.

It is suggested that the statement was admissible as a voluntary statement made while under arrest, which conduced to establish guilt, and was found to be true, under the provisions of Art. 727, C. C.P.

The statement wás not admissible for that reason, because it disclosed no information or matter which was not known to the officers prior to the making of the statement. Lovell v. State, 138 Tex.Cr.R. 134, 134 S.W.2d 266; Baggett v. State, 65 Tex.Cr.R. 425, 144 S.W. 1136; Willoughby v. State, 87 Tex.Cr.R. 40, 219 S.W. 468.

For the error pointed out, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5391 

To suspend temporarily the rate of duty on Reactive Red. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 7, 2012 

Ms. FUDGE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the rate of duty on Reactive Red. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. REACTIVE RED. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Reactive Red (CAS No. 

803688–04–2) (provided 

for in subheading 

3204.19.20) ....................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2015 ’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies to articles entered, or withdrawn 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5391 IH

1 from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day 

2 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### ROGERS v. STATE.

No. 23411.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 23, 1946.

Dan Abbott, of Abilene, for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Appellant pleaded guilty to the accusation of adultery, and her punishment was assessed at a fine of $100.

Théreafter, she presented a motion for new trial, claiming that her plea had been entered as a result of intimidation and coercion.

The motion was overruled and notice of appeal given on February 14, 1946, at which time appellant was allowed 60 days from that date within which to file a statement of facts and bills of exceptions.

 No statement of facts was ever filed. Two bills of exceptions were filed on April 25, 1946, after the trial court had, on April 16, 1946, attempted to grant an extension of 10 days within which bills of exceptions might be filed.

The trial court was without authority to grant such extensions, the 60 days’ time originally granted having expired on April 1'5, 1946 — or one day prior to the entry of the extension order.

The bills of exceptions, not having been filed within the time allowed, cannot be considered.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.