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



Exhibit 32.1 Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of United Defense
Industries, Inc. (the Company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge,
that: (i) the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2003 (the Report) fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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: March 2, 2004
    
    /s/ Thomas W. Rabaut
Thomas W. Rabaut
President and Chief Executive Officer
 The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before
or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in
such filing.
Exhibit 10.9


 


Explanatory Note: This document has been translated
from the Chinese-language original for reference purposes only. While this English translation is believed to be generally accurate, it
is subject to, and qualified by, in its entirety, the Chinese-language original. Such Chinese-language original shall be the controlling
document for all purposes.


 


Purchase Advance Payment Contract


 


Party A (payer): Anhui Aokai Fa Grease Technology Co., Ltd.


Party B (Payee): Kang Du


 


Party B is Party A’s raw material supplier. In order to reduce
operating costs and enhance the partnership between the two parties, Party A agrees to prepay certain prices for the purchase of corresponding
raw materials for Party B’s obligation to provide Party A with Camellia seeds. After full negotiation by both parties, the following
contracts have been concluded:


 


1. Purpose of advance payment: Party B can only use the advance payment
paid by Party A to purchase camellia seed raw materials, and shall not use it for other purposes.


 


2. Prepaid amount: RMB 4,000,000


 


3. As Party B’s business scope also involves Camellia seed oil,
Party A may also provide Party B with Camellia seed oil of the same value as the advance payment to offset the advance payment. The price
of Camellia seed oil shall be in accordance with Party A’s regulations.


 


4. Repayment method: Party B will deduct the advance payment in the
form of Camellia seeds or equivalent currency to Party A. The repayment period shall not exceed twelve months per year, and special circumstances
shall be negotiated separately.


 


5. Party B promises to provide Party A with Camellia Seeds at a price
that is 2% lower than the actual price of Camellia Seeds on the actual delivery date. After the prepayment is deducted, the settlement
will be based on the actual market price.


 


6. If Party B fails to use the advance payment as required by the agreement,
Party A has the right to recover the advance payment and impose a penalty interest of three thousandths per day for the breached part.


 


7. For matters not covered, the two parties can negotiate and conclude
a supplementary contract. The supplementary contract has the same legal effect as this contract. Any party who fails to negotiate can
bring a lawsuit to the people's court in China.


 


8. This contract is valid for one year, and it will automatically terminate
when it expires.


 


9. This contract has two copies, with each party holding one copy,
and it will take effect from the date of signing.


 


/s/ Anhui Aokai Fa Grease Technology Co., Ltd.


Party A: Anhui Aokai Fa Grease Technology Co., Ltd.


Date: May 20, 2020


 


/s/ Kang Du


Party B: Kang Du


Date: May 20, 2020
#### GREEN v. STATE.

No. 22270.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 4, 1942.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 13, 1943.

Mel Janes, of Lubbock, for appellant.

Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was charged with possessing intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale in Scurry County, a dry area. Upon a plea of guilty before the court appellant’s punishment was assessed at a fine of $200.

No bills of exception or statement of facts appear in the record. Nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

The record in this cause is the same as in No. 22263, 167 S.W.2d 183, against the *188same appellant, save that in the present record the precise date of the judgment on appellant’s plea of guilty is not shown. The case was tried at the March term, 1942 of the county court, and the delays in perfecting the record are the same as in No. 22263.

The motion for rehearing is overruled.
---

EXHIBIT 32.01

# 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 on Form 10-Q of Swank, Inc. (the Company)
for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2006 (the Report), the
undersigned each hereby certifies 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 Company.

|Dated: August 14, 2006
Dated: August 14, 2006 | /s/ John Tulin
John Tulin, President
(Chief Executive Officer)/s/ Jerold R. Kassner
Jerold R. Kassner, Senior Vice President
and Treasurer
(Chief Financial Officer)
|--------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

19
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Marianne Molleur, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of StockerYale, Inc.;

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 small business issuer as of, and for, the
periods presented in this report.

4. The small business issuer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 small business issuer 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 small business issuer, 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
small business issuer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 small business issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during
the small business issuers most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuers fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business
issuers internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The small business issuers other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer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 small business issuer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 small business issuers internal control over financial reporting.

Date: August 14, 2006



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Marianne Molleur   
|Marianne Molleur       
|Chief Financial Officer
#### BROOKS v. STATE.

No. 26458.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 27, 1953.

George W. Walker, Van Horn, for appellant.

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

BELCHER, Commissioner.

Appellant was convicted for the violation of Art. 6687b, § 27, V.A.R.C.S.; and his punishment was assessed at a fine of $50.

The information upon which this conviction was predicated alleged that appellant “did then and there unlawfully drive and operate a motor vehicle upon a public *318highway, to-wit: U. S. Highway Number 80, situated within said county and state, while his, the said Keith Brook’s, drivers license was suspended.”

In Hassell v. State, 149 Tex.Cr.R. 333, 194 S.W.2d 400, 401, we said:

> “There being no such license as a ‘driver’s’ license known to the law, it follows that the information, in charging the driving of a motor vehicle upon a public highway without such a license, charges no offense.” See also Holloway v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 237 S.W.2d 303.

Because the information fails to charge an offense, the judgment is reversed and the prosecution ordered dismissed.

Opinion approved by the Court.
- -----------c-=-----

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Management System 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE. 

West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140 

Washington, DC 20590 

130 South Clow International Parkway 

Suite B. 

Bolingbrook, IL. 60490 

630 759-1555 

630 759-2281 FAX 

lJ 

Reference: Extension of Exemption #1 0239 

Docket # F AA-2011-024 7 

Dear Sirs: Oct. 20, 2012 

This letter is to petition the U.S. Department of Transportation on behalf of Better Living Aviation, 

lnc.(J1JA416J) and A&M Aviation, Inc. (ANMJGL03) for an extension of the exemption from the 

requirement for a separate drug and alcohol testing program for both 135 operations and 91.14 7 

operations that are being conducted by the same pilots in the same planes at the same airport. 

- Better Living Aviation, Inc. whose physical location is at 130 S. Clow International Parkway 

Bolingbrook, IL operates a charter operation under 14 CFR §135 and A&M Aviation, Inc whose 

location is at 130 S. Clow International Parkway Bolingbrook, IL operates a passenger-carrying 

flights for compensation or hire under 14 CFR §91.147. We are petitioning to combine the drug 

and alcohol requirements (§91.147 and §§120.1,120.3 and 120.5) as both operations are 

managed by the same person and staffed with the same people. The 135 pilot and safety 

sensitive employees are already participating in the drug and alcohol testing program under the 

14 CFR Part 120 and 49 CFR Part 40 operation, therefore; it is redundant to have two separate 

drug and alcohol testing programs. It is a financial and administrative hardship for Better Living 

Aviation, Inc. and A&M Aviation, Inc. to maintain two programs. 

Better Living Aviation, Inc. strives to maintain an exceptionally high level of safety. Combining 

these operations under one drug and alcohol testing program would in no way jeopardize safety 

as the pilots are already enrolled the Better Living Aviation, Inc. testing program and are subject 

to random drug and alcohol testing. They have already tested negative for their pre-employment 

drug test and are in the testing pool for random selections. 

In summary, Better Living Aviation, Inc. seeks an exemption from the need for two separate drug 

and alcohol testing programs because both our operations fall under one management and it 

is redundant to maintain two programs. 

Thank you for your attention to this matter. Please contact me with any questions or concerns 

regardi this petiti~on. 

ames 

~~~~~ T. fi'a~2f . 

Drug Program Manager, Better living Aviation, Inc. 

Director of Operations, Better Living Aviation, Inc. 

President, A&M Aviation, Inc.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2946 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2946

      To direct the Administrator of the Transportation Security 
  Administration to assess and report on the risk posed to commercial 
    aviation security if a flight deck door is opened during flight.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             August 1, 2013

 Mr. LoBiondo introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Homeland Security

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To direct the Administrator of the Transportation Security 
  Administration to assess and report on the risk posed to commercial 
    aviation security if a flight deck door is opened during flight.

    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 ``Risk-Based Cockpit Security Act of 
2013''.

SEC. 2. SECURITY RISK ASSESSMENT.

    (a) Assessment.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Transportation Security 
Administration shall complete an assessment that--
            (1) identifies any risk posed to commercial aviation 
        security if a flight deck door is opened while a commercial 
        aircraft is in flight;
            (2) identifies methods to mitigate such risk; and
            (3) recommends security standards for any mitigation method 
        that involves installing a physical secondary cockpit barrier 
        on a commercial aircraft.
    (b) Report.--Not later than 10 days after completing the assessment 
described in subsection (a), the Administrator of the Transportation 
Security Administration shall submit to the Committee on Homeland 
Security of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Homeland 
Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate a report containing any 
findings and recommendations of the assessment.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.A
 
 
 
 
 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 on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2011, of Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company (the “Company”) as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Norman G. Holmes, President, certify (i) that the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and (ii) that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 /s/ Norman G. HolmesNorman G. HolmesPresident(Principal Executive Officer)Tennessee Gas Pipeline CompanyMay 6, 2011
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company and will be retained by Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3065 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3065

                  To repeal the War Powers Resolution.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 9, 2013

 Mr. Garrett introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
   Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on 
 Rules, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in 
   each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the 
                jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                  To repeal the War Powers Resolution.

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

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF WAR POWERS RESOLUTION.

    The War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148; 50 U.S.C. 1541 et 
seq.) is repealed.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5738 Engrossed in House (EH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5738

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 15285 Samohin Drive in Macomb, Michigan, as the ``Lance Cpl. Anthony 
               A. DiLisio Clinton-Macomb Carrier Annex''.

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

SECTION 1. LANCE CPL. ANTHONY A. DILISIO CLINTON-MACOMB CARRIER ANNEX.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 15285 Samohin Drive in Macomb, Michigan, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Lance Cpl. Anthony A. DiLisio Clinton-Macomb 
Carrier Annex''.
    (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 ``Lance Cpl. 
Anthony A. DiLisio Clinton-Macomb Carrier Annex''.

            Passed the House of Representatives November 28, 2012.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
112th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 5738

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 15285 Samohin Drive in Macomb, Michigan, as the ``Lance Cpl. Anthony 
               A. DiLisio Clinton-Macomb Carrier Annex''.
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

BRIAN EDWARDS, 

Appellant, 

vs. 

THE STATE OF NEVADA, 

Respondent. 

No. 69822 

FILED 

APR 2 7 2016 

TRACIE K. LNDEMAN 

CLERK OF SUPREME COURT 

By _cAtt4J-S.,_ 

DEPUTY CLERIC 

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL 

This is an appeal from a purported decision denying a 

postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Eighth Judicial 

District Court, Clark County; Stefany Miley, Judge. 

Appellant filed his notice of appeal on January 27, 2016. In 

his notice of appeal, appellant states that he is appealing from a decision 

entered on December 18, 2015. The documents before this court do not 

indicate that any decision was entered in the district court on that date. 

To the extent that appellant appeals from the order denying a 

postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus entered on July 6, 2015, 

that order was already appealed in Docket No. 68257, and this court 

entered an order of affirmance on December 18, 2015.' Because appellant 

'To the extent appellant is attempting to appeal from this court's 

December 18, 2015, order of affirmance in Docket No. 68257, the proper 

avenue to challenge that decision would have been to file a petition for 

rehearing in that appeal pursuant to NRAP 40. However, the time to file 

a petition for rehearing in Docket No. 68257 has now passed and the 

remittitur has issued in that appeal. See NRAP 40(a)(1); NRAP 41. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A e I (o- 1 32?7 
failed to designate an appealable order, we lack jurisdiction over this 

appeal, and we 

ORDER this appeal DISMISSED. 

Douglas 

cc: Hon. Stefany Miley, District Judge 

Brian Edwards 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A (sagjr„) 

2
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02-20-00008-CV

___________________________

On Appeal from the 16th District Court

Denton County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2010-11156-16

Before Gabriel, Kerr, and Birdwell, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Gabriel

CLARENCE JEDUSS WASHINGTON, Appellant

V.

CATHERINE GRACE RUBIO, Appellee
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Clarence Jeduss Washington attempts to appeal the trial court’s

“Commitment Order” committing him to county jail for 180 days after a finding of

contempt for his failure to make court-ordered child support payments. 

On January 10, 2020, we sent Washington a letter expressing our concern that 

we do not have jurisdiction over this appeal because the “Commitment Order” is not 

a final judgment or an appealable interlocutory order. See In re Office of Attorney Gen. of 

Tex., 215 S.W.3d 913, 915 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2007, orig. proceeding) 

(“Decisions in contempt proceedings cannot be reviewed on appeal because contempt 

orders are not appealable, even when appealed along with a judgment that is 

appealable.”); Cadle Co. v. Lobingier, 50 S.W.3d 662, 671 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2001, 

pets. denied) (en banc) (stating the same and explaining that a “contempt judgment is 

reviewable only via a petition for writ of habeas corpus (if the contemnor is confined) 

or a petition for writ of mandamus (if no confinement is involved)”); Anderson v. 

Burleson, 583 S.W.2d 467, 467 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1979, no writ) (“There 

is no provision in Texas statutes for an appeal from an adjudication and commitment 

for contempt.”). 

We informed Washington that unless he filed a response showing grounds for 

continuing the appeal, we would dismiss it. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 44.3. 

Washington has not filed a response. Accordingly, we dismiss his appeal for want of

jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f); In re Office of Attorney Gen. of Tex., 215 S.W.3d 
3

at 915; Cadle Co., 50 S.W.3d at 671; Kristopher v. State, No. 14-98-1042-CR, 1998 WL 

725812, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Oct. 8, 1998, no pet.) (not designated 

for publication) (“We are unable to consider these appeals because orders of 

contempt and commitment are unappealable, interlocutory orders.”).

/s/ Lee Gabriel

Lee Gabriel

Justice

Delivered: February 13, 2020