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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of WNC Housing Tax Credit Fund
V, L.P., Series 3 (the “Partnership”) for the quarter ended September 30, 2009
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), and pursuant to 18 U.S.C., section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Wilfred N. Cooper, Jr., President and Chief
Executive Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc., general partner of the
Partnership, hereby certify 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
      Partnership.








/s/WILFRED N. COOPER,
JR.


Wilfred
N. Cooper, Jr.


President
and Chief Executive Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc.





January
08, 2010
#### HANCOCK v. STATE.

No. 19856.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 26, 1938.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 23, 1938.

No attorney for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

The conviction is for the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor in a dry area; penalty assessed at a fine of $150.

*338The complaint and information appear regular. -The record is before this court without statement of facts or bills of exception. No error has been' perceived or pointed out.

The judgment is affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

' KRUEGER, Judge.

In his motion.for a rehearing, appellant earnestly insists that we erred in affirming the judgment of the trial court. He contends that there was no evidence before the court showing that Erath County was dry area.

We find no statement of facts in the record and in the absence thereof, we are unable to determine the correctness of his position. See Sec. 602, Branch’s P.C.; Davis v. State, 2 Tex.App. 162.

The motion for a rehearing is overruled.

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.
#### In the Matter of Paul Augello et al., Appellants, v Board of Education of the Lynbrook Union Free School District, Respondent.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a resolution of the respondent Board of Education of the Lynbrook Union Free School District dated June 15, 1988, which, *inter alia,*reduced the contributions to be made toward the petitioners’ health insurance premiums, the petitioners appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCabe, J.), dated May 31, 1989, which granted the respondent’s motion to dismiss the proceeding.

Ordered, that the order and judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, the petition is reinstated, and that the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for further proceedings on the petition.

For the reasons stated in *Allen v Board of Educ.*(168 AD2d 403 [decided herewith]), we conclude that the existence of triable issues of fact preclude dismissal of the proceeding (CPLR 7804 [h]). Bracken, J. P., Harwood, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANTTO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with thisQuarterly Report of UnionBanCal Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June 30,2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, David I. Matson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

(1)          The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)          Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| Dated: August 6, 2007 |   |
|----------------------------|--------|
|                       | By:    | /s/ DAVID I. MATSON |
|                       |   | David I. Matson |
|                       |   | *Chief  Financial Officer* |

 

----
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5.4.

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-40268 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. JUAN NICOLAS AMADO-REYES, alsoknown as Juan Jose Hernandez Ramirez Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:07-CR-1148-ALL Before DAVIS, WIENER, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to representJuan NicolasAmadoReyes has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Amado-Reyes has not filed a response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR. R. 42.2. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D December 10, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk
#### SERVICE FINANCE CORPORATION v. GROTE.

No. 2250—7486.

Commission of Appeals of Texas, Section A.

July 26, 1939.

Russell, McMillan & Russell and Wm. B. McMillan, all of San Antonio, for plaintiff in error.

Keys & Holt and Hayden W. Head, all of Corpus Christi, for defendant in error.

GERMAN, Commissioner.

This case, as presented here, involves only an appeal from an order granting a temporary injunction by the District Court of Nueces County. The temporary injunction restrained defendant in error from making sale of certain automobiles pending final hearing upon merits of the controversy between the parties. Upon appeal, the Court of Civil Appeals dissolved the injunction. 119 S.W.2d 136.

Although writ of error was granted1 in favor of plaintiff in error, no application was made to the Supreme Court for an injunction pending disposition of the case in this court. Defendant in error has filed motion to dismiss the cause on the ground that it is ’moot. This motion is based upon the contention that since dissolution of the temporary injunction by the Court of Civil Appeals the defendant in error has sold all of the automobiles affected by the writ. In order to determine whether or not the case was moot the Supreme Court requested the Judge of the District Court of Nue-ces County to hold a hearing and ascertain whether or not, since dissolution of the injunction by 'the Court of Civil Appeals, there has been a bona fide sale or sales of the automobiles covered by the temporary injunction. Following said request, the Honorable Cullen W. Briggs, Judge of the 117th Judicial District Court of Nueces County, held such hearing, and under date of July 7, 1939, certified to the *94Supreme Court his findings of fact as developed on the hearing. Said findings have not been contested here. From these findings it appears that bona fide sales have been made of all automobiles actually affected by the temporary injunction, and said injunction can no longer have any force or effect, even if the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals should be reversed. The cause, therefore, in so far as temporary writ of injunction is concerned, which is the only cause pending here, is moot.

The judgments of the Court of Civil Appeals and of the trial court are therefore vacated, and the cause, in so far as said temporary injunction is concerned, is dismissed.

All costs incurred in the temporary injunction proceeding will be taxed against plaintiff in error, as it is plaintiff in the trial court. International Association of Machinists Union No. 1488 et al. v. Federated Association of Accessory Workers et al., Tex.Com.App., 130 S.W.2d 282, not yet published [in State Reports].

The Court formally extends thanks to Judge Briggs for his courteous cooperation and assistance in the matter of ascertaining the facts certified to the Court.

Opinion adopted by the. Supreme Court.
#### WOMACK v. STATE.

No. 19924.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 30, 1938.

Wiley B. Thomas, of Groveton, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Judge.

Appellant was charged with uttering, publishing, passing and using as true and genuine a certain false deed to land in *193Trinity County, and upon a trial thereof he was given a term of twelve years in the penitentiary.

The State was forced to rely upon the testimony of accomplice witnesses in proving this offense. The proof of the making of this deed rested entirely on accomplice testimony, and the court instructed the jury that the witnesses thereto were accomplices. It then became necessary under the law for the State to present some corroborative testimony, outside of that of the accomplices, which would tend to connect the appellant with the offense charged. We have carefully searched the record therefor and are unable to find the same. We do find a witness who was not an accomplice, Mr. Nash, who saw the appellant and the four accomplices together on Sunday, the day after the lady’s death, whose signature was alleged to have been forged to such deed, but his testimony goes no further than to show that these parties were together in front of his home. We then find that on such Sunday night the appellant, together with Mr. Mangan, the grantee in such deed, going to a church and calling the county clerk out therefrom, and in the presence of appellant Mr. Mangan left such deed with the clerk, and directed that it be recorded.

This is all the corroboration that we can find, after having diligently searched the record. The indictment herein contains four counts, the first count thereof containing a charge that the appellant advised, aided, assisted and encouraged the forging of Mrs. Lee Secrist Davis’ name to a certain false instrument; the second count charging the appellant himself with uttering, passing and using as true the false instrument in writing, knowing same to be false; the third count charged the appellant with aiding and assisting in the filing for record of such deed, and the fourth count charging him with a conspiracy to commit the felony of making such false and forged instrument. A conviction was had on the second count, thus eliminating the other three.

We are unable to see any sufficient corroboration of the accomplices testimony. It is not shown that the signature on the acknowledgment is that of appellant; it is not even shown that he was a notary public. No further connecting testimony is anywhere found other than that herein above recited, and under the circumstances we are 'driven to the conclusion that the corroboration of the four witnesses, who the trial court charged the jury were accomplices, is not sufficient to tend to show that the appellant made this false instrument. This matter was properly presented to the trial court, and the point preserved in a proper objection to the court’s charge, as well as in appellant’s motion for a new trial.

On account of a lack of corroboration of the accomplices’ testimony, this judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
**EXHIBIT32**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Apex SilverMines Limited (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2007as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adoptedpursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements ofsection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result ofoperations of the Company.

 
| \s\ Jeffrey G. Clevenger                          |   |
|---------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Jeffrey G. Clevenger                              |   |
| President and Chief Executive Officer             |   |
| August 8, 2007                                    |   |
|                                              |   |
|                                              |   |
| \s\ Gerald J. Malys                               |   |
| Gerald J. Malys                                   |   |
| Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |   |
| August 8, 2007                                    |   |

 

----
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. 1350)



In connection with the Annual Report of Wells
Real Estate Fund VI, L.P. (the Registrant) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Leo F. Wells, III, Chief
Executive Officer of the corporate general partner of one of the General Partners of the Registrant, and Douglas P. Williams, Chief Financial Officer of the corporate general partner of one of the General Partners of the Registrant, hereby certify,
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that, to the best of our 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 results of operations of the Registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                          
|--------------------------
|/s/    Leo F. Wells, III  
|Leo F. Wells, III         
|Chief Executive Officer   
|March 25, 2004            
|                          
|/s/    Douglas P. Williams
|Douglas P. Williams       
|Chief Financial Officer   
|March 25, 2004
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 1350

As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906

of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Geospatial Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q/A for
the period ending September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Mark A Smith, 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:

(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 result of operations of the Company.



|                        |  |        |  |                        
|----------------------- |  | ------ |  | -----------------------
|Date: November 20, 2009 |  | By:    |  | /s/ Mark A. Smith      
|                        |  | Name:  |  | Mark A. Smith          
|                        |  | Title: |  | Chief Executive Officer
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1313 

To amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 so that 

any local educational agency receiving funding under part A of title 

I of such Act or public charter school is eligible for a Troops to Teachers 

participant. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 4, 2009 

Mr. PETRI (for himself and Ms. MATSUI) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor, and in addition 

to the Committee on Armed Services, 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 amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 

of 1965 so that any local educational agency receiving 

funding under part A of title I of such Act or public 

charter school is eligible for a Troops to Teachers participant. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This act may be cited as the ‘‘Troops to Teachers 

5 Improvement Act of 2009’’. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1313 IH

1 SEC. 2. PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT AND FINANCIAL AS2 SISTANCE UNDER TROOPS TO TEACHERS 

3 PROGRAM. 

4 Section 2304(a)(1)(B) of the Elementary and Sec5 ondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6674(a)(B)) is 

6 amended by striking ‘‘high-need local educational agency 

7 or public charter school, as such terms are defined in sec8 tion 2101’’ and inserting ‘‘local educational agency receiv9 ing funding under part A of title I or public charter school 

10 (as such term is defined in section 2102)’’. 

11 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

12 The amendments made by this Act shall take effect 

13 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 1350

As Adopted Pursuant to
Section 906

of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Geospatial Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report), I, Mark A Smith, 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:

(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 result of operations of the Company.



|                      |  |        |  |                        
|--------------------- |  | ------ |  | -----------------------
|Date: August 14, 2008 |  | By:    |  | /s/ Mark A. Smith      
|                      |  | Name:  |  | Mark A. Smith          
|                      |  | Title: |  | Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of
Knoll, Inc. (the Company) for the period ending June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Andrew B. Cogan, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certifies,
pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350 (as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), that to my knowledge:



| | a. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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

August 11, 2008



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Andrew B. Cogan    
|Andrew B. Cogan        
|Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>

                                  FIRST AMENDMENT

                                         TO
                              ACTIVE VOICE CORPORATION
                          1997 DIRECTOR STOCK OPTION PLAN

     THIS FIRST AMENDMENT is adopted effective as of May 6, 1999 (the
"Amendment Date"), by ACTIVE VOICE CORPORATION, a Washington corporation (the
"Company").

                                      RECITALS

     A.   The Company has adopted the Active Voice Corporation 1997 Director
Stock Option Plan, which was amended and restated as of June 22, 1998 (the
"Plan").

     B.   The Company desires to amend the Plan in certain respects.

     NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:

     1.   Section 4 of the Plan is amended by replacing "sixty thousand
(60,000)" with "eighty-four thousand (84,000)."

     2.   Except as amended hereby, the Plan shall remain in full force and
effect.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this First Amendment has been executed as of the
Amendment Date.


                                   ACTIVE VOICE CORPORATION


                                   By  /s/ Robert L. Richmond
                                       -------------------------------------
                                       Robert L. Richmond
                                       President and Chief Executive Officer
#### HANNA v. STATE.

No. 15309.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 2, 1932.

Williams & Williams, of Mt. Pleasant, for appellant.

Uoyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

LATTIMORE, J.

Conviction for theft; punishment, five years in the penitentiary.

About the 27th of December, 1931, a new car of the value of $500 was taken from in front of the residence of its owner in Mount Pleasant. The car was later recovered and identified. An officer of Tyler, Tex., testified that about the first of January, 1932, lie arrested appellant in Tyler, and that appellant was driving the car later identified as the one here in question. No explanation of appellant’s possession seems to have then been made. Appellant took the witness stand in his own behalf and testified that he was in Muskogee, Okl., and met a friend who had the car in question, and this man wanted $400 for it, and appellant said he bought it, paying $200 down, and that he and the man referred to came together to Tyler in the car. No one else testified for the defense. The court’s charge appropriately submitted the issue thus raised. The verdict of the jury settled same against appellant. The possession of recently stolen property has many times been held a sufficient circumstance to justify the conclusion that said property was stolen, and that its possessor was the thief.

No bills of exception were taken to the introduction of any testimony. In his motion for new trial and on appeal appellant complains because the state’s attorney was permitted to ask, and did ask, him while on the witness stand if he had not 'been charged with various felonies at times prior to the one under investigation. While the matter is not properly brought up for our consideration, we might observe that it is the uniform practice in this court to uphold the admission of such testimony as that referred to, as affecting the credibility of the accused as a witness.

Binding no error in the record, the judgment will be affirmed.