alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
32.1
 
 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as enacted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, the undersigned officer of Stratus Media Group, Inc. (the “Company”)
hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge:
 
 (1) This
Report on Form 10-K for the ear ended December 31, 2008 (“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.
 
 Date:  April
      17, 2009/s/
      Paul FellerName:
      Paul FellerTitle:     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.
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 10-2118

___________ In re: M & M Marketing, L.L.C., * * Debtor, * ----------------------------------------- * * Michael L. Blumenthal, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * Bankruptcy Appellate Panel * for the Eighth Circuit. Richard D. Myers, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant, * * Jerry Cronk; Cheryl Cronk; * Jerome Langdon; Coleen Langdon; * Phillip Cronk; Lorraine Cronk, * * Appellees, * ------------------------------------------ * * In re: Premier Fighter, L.L.C., * * Debtor, * ------------------------------------------ * * Michael L. Blumenthal, * * Appellee, * * v. ** Richard D. Myers, * * Appellant, * * Jerome Langdon; Coleen Langdon; * Ryan Cronk; Jeremiah McAndrew, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: October 15, 2010 Filed: October 20, 2010

___________ Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. After the trustee of the bankruptcy es tates of M&M Marketing L.L.C. and Premier Fighting, L.L.C. employed counsel to assist him in connection with the estates, creditor Michael L. Blumenthal moved to disqualify counsel based on a conflict of interest. The bankruptcy c ourt denied the motion but the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) reversed , and this appeal followed. Following careful review, we agree with the BAP that the trustee’s attempt to justify the employment by arguing that counsel was employed for a special purpose fails: 11 U.S.C. § 327(e) governs special-purpose representation, and that statute is inapposite here, where counsel did not previously represent the debtors. We agree further that counsel held an interest adverse to the estates, because he was also serving as attorney for several creditors who held interests advers e to the estates. See In re Vote , 276 F.3d 1024, 1026 (8th Cir. 2002); United Artists Theatre Co. v. Walton , 315 F.3d 217, 225 (3d Cir. 2003)). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

-2-
[Cite as State ex rel. Akram v. Berens, 2016-Ohio-133.]

aCOURT OF APPEALS 

FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

STATE OF OHIO, EX REL., 

ALEEM AKRAM 

Relator 

-vsJUDGE RICHARD E. BERENS 

Respondent 

JUDGES: 

Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J. 

Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, J. 

Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J. 

Case No. 15-CA-62 

O P I N I O N 

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Writ of Procedendo 

JUDGMENT: Dismissed 

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: January 13, 2016 

APPEARANCES: 

For Relator For Respondent 

ALEEM AKRAM #676-949 No Appearance 

Pickaway Correctional Institute 

P.O. Box 209 

Orient, Ohio 43146 
Fairfield County, Case No. 15-CA-62 2

Hoffman, P.J. 

{¶1} Relator, Aleem Akram, has filed a Petition for Writ of Procedendo. Relator 

requests Respondent be ordered to rule on a motion filed in the trial court on June 4, 

2015. On December 10, 2015 Respondent ruled upon the motion. 

{¶2} To be entitled to a writ of procedendo, “a relator must establish a clear 

legal right to require the court to proceed, a clear legal duty on the part of the court to 

proceed, and the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.” Miley,

supra, at 65, citing State ex rel. Sherrills v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas

(1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 461, 462. The Supreme Court has noted, “The writ of procedendo 

is merely an order from a court of superior jurisdiction to one of inferior jurisdiction to 

proceed to judgment. It does not in any case attempt to control the inferior court as to 

what that judgment should be.” State ex rel. Davey v. Owen, 133 Ohio St. 96, *106, 12 

N.E.2d 144, * *149 (1937). 

{¶3} The Supreme Court has held procedendo will not issue where the 

requested relief has been obtained, “Neither procedendo nor mandamus will compel the 

performance of a duty that has already been performed.” State ex rel. Kreps v. 

Christiansen, 88 Ohio St.3d 313, 318, 725 N.E.2d 663, 668 (Ohio, 2000). 

{¶4} Because Respondent has issued a ruling on Relator’s motion, the request 

for a writ of procedendo has become moot. For this reason, the Petition for Writ of 

Procedendo is dismissed. 

{¶5} PETITION DISMISSED. 

{¶6} COSTS WAIVED. 
Fairfield County, Case No. 15-CA-62 3

{¶7} IT IS SO ORDERED. 

By: Hoffman, P.J. 

Farmer, J. and 

Delaney, J. concur
P. 1 

# OAR Box 1830 Prepped byOllie Stewart

Document

Number: 

# 57 ) IV-C-2

3 Docket Number: 

# A-87-1 1

Printed 11/13/20087:20:53 AM Sheet 57 of 232P. 2

UNITED STATE S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY

WASHINGTON , D.C . 2046 0 

### !:- . JA

NS 9 

### \bb

Honorabl e Bria nDonnell y Hous e o f Representative s Washington , D . C . 2051 5 Dea r Mr . Donnelly : Than k yo u fo r passin g alon g th e comment s o f Mr . Loui s A . Barrett a concernin g EPA' s proposa l t o requir e onboar drefuelin g emissio ncontrols . B e assure dtha t thes e comment s wil l b e considere di nth e nex t phas e o f ou r rulemakin g process . W e wil l als o b e placin g the m i nth e publi c docke t fo r th e rule
making . Than k yo u agai nfo r you r concer ni n thi s matter . f •in
sincerel yyours , ••KlGWAl'SIGNE D B Y P.K-HA3DD . WILSO N Richar dD . Wilso n Director , Offic e o f Mobil e Source s cc : Docke t A-87-1 1
#### HEATH v. STATE.

No. 22174.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 10, 1942.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 14, 1942.

C. E. Florence, of Gilmer, and B. F. Whitworth, of Linden, for appellant.

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

KRUEGER, Judge.

The offense is murder. The punishment assessed is confinement in the state penitentiary for a term of seven years.

The record is before us without any statement of facts or bills of exception. However, there are quite a number of exceptions to the court’s charge, but in the absence of a statement of facts, we cannot appraise the same. The indictment appears to be in due form. Hence, nothing is presented for review.

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.
<PAGE>


                                                                   Exhibit 10.55

                DESCRIPTION OF MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE BONUS PLAN

         Bonus targets were established as a percent of pay based on pay level.
If both the individual and plan objectives are achieved, the plan is designed to
produce a bonus ranging, on a sliding scale, from a threshold amount if the plan
objectives are minimally achieved up to a maximum amount if such objectives are
substantially exceeded. For fiscal 2000, the threshold bonus level was
established at an amount which, when added to base salary, could be less than
the 50th percentile of total salary and bonus for comparable positions in
comparison surveys utilized by the Compensation Committee. Thus, total salary
and bonus for executive officers (assuming achievement of all individual
objectives) is designed to range from less than the 50th up to the 75th
percentile of total salary and bonus for comparable positions in the comparison
surveys according to the degree to which plan objectives are met or exceeded.

         Frederick W. Smith's bonus is determined by whether corporate business
plan objectives are met or exceeded. If such objectives are met, the
Compensation Committee determines and recommends to the Board of Directors a
bonus which, when combined with base salary, may be up to the 75th percentile of
total salary and bonus for chief executive officers in the comparison surveys
discussed above. Mr. Smith received an annual bonus of $1,048,000 for fiscal
2000, which, together with his base salary, is below the 75th percentile of
total salary and bonus for chief executive officers in the comparison surveys
discussed above.
113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3627 

AN ACT 

To require the Attorney General to report on State law 

penalties for certain child abusers, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 3627 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Kilah Davenport Child 

3 Protection Act of 2013’’. 

4 SEC. 2. ATTORNEY GENERAL REPORT. 

5 Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment 

6 of this Act, and again 3 years thereafter, the Attorney 

7 General shall publish and submit to the Committee on the 

8 Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Com9 mittee on the Judiciary of the United States Senate a re10 port on the penalties for violations of laws prohibiting 

11 child abuse in each of the 50 States, the District of Colum12 bia, and each territory of the United States, including 

13 whether the laws of that State, District, or territory pro14 vides for enhanced penalties when the victim has suffered 

15 serious bodily injury, or permanent or protracted loss or 

16 impairment of any mental or emotional function. 

17 SEC. 3. EXPANSION OF PREDICATE FOR INCREASED PEN18 ALTIES FOR CERTAIN DOMESTIC ASSAULTS. 

19 Section 117(a)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is 

20 amended by inserting ‘‘, or against a child of or in the 
3 

•HR 3627 EH

1 care of the person committing the domestic assault’’ after 

2 ‘‘intimate partner’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives December 9, 

2013. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3627 

AN ACT 

To require the Attorney General to report on State 

other purposes. law penalties for certain child abusers, and for
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 Quarterly Report of Digital Broadband Networks, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Patrick Soon-Hock Lim, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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 result of operations of the
Company.


/s/ Patrick Soon-Hock Lim
-------------------------
Patrick Soon-Hock Lim
Chief Executive Officer
August 1, 2003
**Exhibit 35.1**

 

ANNUAL SERVICER’S COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE

 

This Compliance Certificate is furnishedpursuant to Section 4.10 of the Sale and Servicing Agreement (the “Agreement”), dated as of April 22, 2015, by andamong Hyundai Auto Receivables Trust 2015-B, Hyundai Capital America, as seller and servicer (the “Servicer”), HyundaiABS Funding, LLC (formerly known as Hyundai ABS Funding Corporation), as depositor, and Citibank, N.A., as indenture trustee andItem 1123 of Regulation AB. The undersigned hereby certifies that:

 

1)          Iam a duly authorized officer of the Servicer.

 

2)         Areview of the activities of the Servicer from January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018 (the “Relevant Period”) andof the Servicer’s performance under the Agreement during the Relevant Period has been made under my supervision.

 

3)          Basedon such review, the Servicer has, to the best of my knowledge, fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all materialrespects throughout the Relevant Period.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have duly executed this Compliance Certificatethis 15th day of March, 2019.
<TABLE>
                                                       EXHIBIT 11.1



                 FOODBRANDS AMERICA, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

               CALCULATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE - UNAUDITED
          (Dollar amounts in thousands, except per share figures)


<CAPTION>
                                   Three Months Ended   Six Months Ended 
                                   __________________  __________________
                                   June 28,  June 29,  June 28,  June 29,
                                     1997      1996      1997      1996  
                                   ________  ________  ________  ________
<S>                                <C>        <C>      <C>        <C>
Income (loss) before 
 extraordinary item                $(28,564)  $ 8,707  $(26,425)  $10,829
Extraordinary loss on early
 extinguishment of debt                -       (5,051)     -       (5,051)
                                   ________   _______  ________   _______

Net income (loss)                  $(28,564)  $ 3,656  $(26,425)  $ 5,778
                                   ========   =======  ========   =======

Primary earnings per share:

   Weighted average number of 
    common shares outstanding         5,343    12,471     8,904    12,470
   Common stock equivalents:
     Dilutive options and warrants     -         -         -         -   
                                     ______    ______    ______    ______
   Weighted average number of 
    common and common equivalent 
    shares outstanding                5,343    12,471     8,904    12,470
                                     ======    ======    ======    ======
   Income (loss) before
    extraordinary item               $(5.35)   $ 0.70    $(2.97)   $ 0.87
   Extraordinary loss on early
    extinguishment of debt              -       (0.41)      -       (0.41)
                                     ______    ______    ______    ______

     Net income (loss) per share     $(5.35)   $ 0.29    $(2.97)   $ 0.46
                                     ======    ======    ======    ======

Fully diluted earnings per share:

   Weighted average number of 
    common shares outstanding         5,343    12,471     8,904    12,470
   Common stock equivalents:
     Dilutive options and warrants     -          193      -          193
                                     ______    ______    ______    ______
   Weighted average number of 
    common and common equivalent 
    shares outstanding                5,343    12,664     8,904    12,663
                                     ======    ======    ======    ======

   Income (loss) before
    extraordinary item               $(5.35)   $ 0.69    $(2.97)   $ 0.86
   Extraordinary loss on early
    extinguishment of debt              -       (0.40)      -       (0.40)
                                     ______    ______    ______    ______

     Net income (loss) per share     $(5.35)   $ 0.29    $(2.97)   $ 0.46
                                     ======    ======    ======    ======

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Form 10-K for the Year ended December 31, 2006, pursuant to Section 906

of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The undersigned Chief Executive Officer of Omega Protein Corporation, certifies, pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| |  | the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, and
|- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  | the information contained in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of Omega Protein Corporation.
|- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: March 12, 2007



/s/ JOSEPH L. VON ROSENBERG, IIIJoseph L. von Rosenberg, IIIPresident and Chief Executive Officer


This certification is provided pursuant to Section 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 Omega Protein Corporation or the certifying officer for purposes of Section 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 Omega Protein Corporation and will be retained by Omega Protein Corporation
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Janet E. Greenwood, Plaintiff, *v.*William N. Greenwood, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Albany County,

February 12, 1958.

*Gerald F. Finn, Jr.,*for plaintiff.

No appearance by defendant.

Donald S. Taylor, J.

In this action the plaintiff seeks to .annul her marriage to defendant on the ground that at the time the ceremony was performed a decree divorcing the defendant from an earlier marriage had not yet become final. An inter*307locutory decree divorcing defendant from Ms former spouse was filed in the office of the Rensselaer County Clerk on October 8, 1948. The decree provided it “ shall become the final judgment, as of course, three months after the entry and filing thereof”. Thereafter, the parties hereto were married on January 8,1949 at Canaan, Connecticut. The plaintiff contends that the earliest date on which the defendant could contract another valid marriage was January 9, 1949.

Section 30 of the General Construction Law provides: “ A number of months after or before a certain day shall be computed by counting such number of calendar months from such day, exclusive of the calendar month in which such day occurs, and shall include the day of the month in the last month so counted having the same numerical order in days of the month as the day from which the computation is made, unless there be not so many days in the last month so counted, in which case the period computed shall expire with the last day of the month so counted”. Applying this canon of construction, it appears that the interlocutory period expired on January 8, 1949 on which day the judgment, by its terms, became final. *(Hungerford*v. *Wagoner, 5*App. Div. *590; Civ.*Prac. Act, § *1176;*see, also, *Hoops v. Hoops,*292 N. Y. 428, 430; *Matter of Foster v. American Radiator Co.,*249 App. Div. 460, 463.) Hence, a marriage performed on that day was not void for the reasons ascribed by plaintiff. Accordingly, the application is denied and the complaint is dismissed.

Submit judgment.
#### GREEN v. STATE.

No. 22347.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 20, 1943.

Nat Gentry, Jr., of Tyler, for appellant.

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

GRAVES, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of a violation of the local option liquor law, and fined the sum of $1,000, hence this appeal.

There are no bills of exceptions in the record.

The facts show that a deputy sheriff of Smith County had received information that a pickup track loaded with beer was coming in towards Tyler on a certain road, and he had driven out on such road. While assisting some persons to change a tire such a described trade passed him, evidently loaded, and going at a high rate of speed. He started in pursuit, and coming up to such truck he saw five cases of beer on the seat by the driver, and altogether there were seventy-nine cases of beer in such truck. The driver offered no written statement, and the officer demanded none, showing .the origin or destination of such shipment, evidencing that such liquor was being transported from a wet area through a dry area to another wet area, as is contemplated by Art. 666 — 27, Vernon’s Ann. Penal Code. The only defense offered by the facts is that appellant lived in Henderson County, no statement being made as to whqre he was taking such liquor, nor for what purpose same was possessed. We do not think that the mere fact that the appellant resides in another county would be of such a strong probative force as to overcome the prima facie presumption of the possession of such a quantity for the purpose of sale. It would be a peculiar doctrine if we should hold that in order for one to be subject to the liquor laws of a dry area in the State he should be a resident of such dry area.

Regardless of where appellant lived, we think the facts herein show that he had in his possession, in a dry area, seventy-nine cases of beer, 24 bottles of 12 ounces to the case, and the trial court was justified in using such prima facie evidence as a basis of conviction. See Art. 667 — 25(b), Vernon’s Ann. Penal Code.

The judgment is affirmed.

BEAUCHAMP, J., did not sit in this case.
Exhibit 13.1

Certification by the Principal Executive Officer 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 Celyad S.A. (the Company) on Form
20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Christian Homsy, Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 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, 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                    |  |                                                      
|------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------
|Date: April 4, 2017
|                   
|/s/ Christian Homsy
|Name:               |  | Christian Homsy                                      
|Title:              |  | Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)