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 QuarterlyReport of China Prosperous Clean Energy Corporation(the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period endedMarch31, 2009as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Wei Wang,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: 

 

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

 

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

 

|              |   |                              |
|-------------------|--------|-----------------------------------|
|              |   |                              |
| Date:May 14, 2009 |   | /s/ Wei Wang                      |
|              |   | Wei Wang

Chief Executive Officer |
|              |   |                              |
Exhibit
10.3


 


_______________,
2014


 


DT
Asia Investments Limited


Room
1102, 11/F.,


Beautiful
Group Tower,


77
Connaught Road Central,


Hong
Kong


 


DeTiger
Holdings Limited


Room
1102, 11/F.,


Beautiful
Group Tower,


77
Connaught Road Central,


Hong
Kong


 


Ladies
and Gentlemen:


 


This
letter will confirm our agreement that, commencing on the effective date (the “Effective Date”) of the
registration statement (the “Registration Statement”) for the initial public offering (the “IPO”)
of the securities of DT Asia Investments Limited (the “Company”) and continuing until the earlier of
(i) the consummation by the Company of an initial business combination or (ii) the Company’s liquidation (in each case as
described in the Registration Statement) (such earlier date hereinafter referred to as the “Termination Date”),
DeTiger Holdings Limited (“DeTiger Holdings”) shall make available to the Company certain office space and administrative
and support services as may be required by the Company from time to time, situated at Room 1102, 11/F., Beautiful Group Tower,
77 Connaught Road Central, Hong Kong (or any successor location).  In exchange therefore, the Company shall pay DeTiger
Holdings the sum of $10,000 per month on the Effective Date and continuing monthly thereafter until the Termination Date.  DeTiger
Holdings hereby agrees that it does not have any right, title, interest or claim of any kind in or to any monies that may be set
aside in a trust account (the “Trust Account”) that may be established upon the consummation of the
IPO (the “Claim”) and hereby waives any Claim it may have in the future as a result of, or arising out
of, any negotiations, contracts or agreements with the Company and will not seek recourse against the Trust Account for any reason
whatsoever.


 





	 	Very truly yours,
	 	 	 
	 	DT ASIA INVESTMENTS LIMITED
	 	 	 
	 	By:	
	 	Name:	 
	 	Title:	 







 





	AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED BY:	 
	 	 	 
	DETIGER HOLDINGS LIMITED	 
	 	 	 
	By:		 
	Name:	 	 
	Title:
EXHIBIT 32.1 EXHIBIT 99 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 Marvins Place, Inc. ("Meltdown") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Chong Kim, President and Chief Executive Officer of Meltdown, and I, Chong Kim, Principal Financial Officer of Meltdown, certify, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, 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; and 2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Meltdown. Date: January 8, 2008  /s/ Chong Kim Chong Kim President and Chief Executive Officer Date: January 8, 2008  /s/ Chong Kim Chong Kim Principal Financial Officer
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.44

                            Davis Brothers Venture
                          4130 East Brookhaven Dr. N.E.
                                Atlanta, GA 30319

August 24, 2001

MR. BOB SPEIZMAN
SPEIZMAN INDUSTRIES, INC.
701 Griffith Road
Charlotte, NC  28217

Re:   Chicago Lease

Dear Bob,

Confirming our conversation earlier this week, the building in Chicago will
continue to be available to you until such time as we find a buyer. We will
notify you immediately when a contract is signed, and you would have an
additional ninety (90) days following the close of the sale. In the even that
the buyer is an investor rather than a business operator, you would of course
have the opportunity of negotiating with the new owner for an extended lease.

The actual square footage is 6,876. We will adjust the rent to $9.00 per square
foot which would make a monthly lease payment of $5,157.00. Davis Brothers
Venture will continue to be responsible for the taxes and insurance, and you as
tenant will continue to cover the maintenance of the property. It's my
understanding that there are no problems with the building at this time.

Should the property not sell within six (6) months, we will revisit this
arrangement. If this is acceptable please sign and date as indicated below.

Sincerely,

/s/ C. Alex Davis

C. Alex Davis
Davis Brothers Venture

ACCEPTED BY:

/s/ Robert S. Speizman

Robert Speizman   Dated  8/28/01
Speizman Industries
# Europos Sąjungos C 146A/2016

| | ISSN 1977-0960 |
| --- | --- |
| Europos Sąjungos
  oficialusis leidinys | C 146A |
| | |
| Leidimas lietuvių kalba | Informacija ir pranešimai | 59 tomas2016m. balandžio 26d. |

ISSN 1977-0960

Europos Sąjungos

oficialusis leidinys

C 146A

Leidimas lietuvių kalba

Informacija ir pranešimai

59 tomas2016m. balandžio 26d.

---

| Pranešimo Nr. | Turinys | Puslapis |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Nuomonės |
| | ADMINISTRACINĖS PROCEDŪROS |
| | Audito Rūmai |
| 2016/C 146A/01 | Rezervo sąrašas (eilės tvarka pagal nuopelnus) — ECA/2015/JUR – 2 teisininko darbo vietos (AD 8 — AD 9 kategorijos) — Teisės tarnyba – Pirmininkavimas | 1 |

Pranešimo Nr.

Turinys

Puslapis

V   Nuomonės

ADMINISTRACINĖS PROCEDŪROS

Audito Rūmai

2016/C 146A/01

Rezervo sąrašas (eilės tvarka pagal nuopelnus) — ECA/2015/JUR – 2 teisininko darbo vietos (AD 8 — AD 9 kategorijos) — Teisės tarnyba – Pirmininkavimas

1

---

| LT | |
| --- | --- |

LT

---

V Nuomonės

ADMINISTRACINĖS PROCEDŪROS

Audito Rūmai

| 26.4.2016 | LT | Europos Sąjungos oficialusis leidinys | CA 146/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.4.2016

LT

Europos Sąjungos oficialusis leidinys

CA 146/1

---

REZERVO SĄRAŠAS

(eilės tvarka pagal nuopelnus)

ECA/2015/JUR – 2 teisininko darbo vietos (AD 8 — AD 9 kategorijos)

Teisės tarnyba – Pirmininkavimas

(2016/C 146 A/01)

Georgios PRANTZOS

Johanne VERMER

Eléonore VON BARDELEBEN

Nunzio BAMBARA

Jan KLEIN

Vassilis KARANTOUNIAS

---
#### Schufletowski, Appellant, vs. Allen, Respondent.

*October 13*

November *16, 1948.*

*508For the appellant there was a brief by *E. C. Smith,,*attorney, and *John E. Smith*of counsel, both of Tomahawk, and oral argument by *John E. Smith.*

*Walter A. Graunke*of Wausau, for the respondent.

Fairchild, J.

The appellant has bound herself by her contract to sell certain lands to one Fred Kottke. She has also authorized him to sell the standing timber on the land. She required him, however, to pay to her all of thé purchase price over the $200 to be retained by Kottke. Kottke sold the timber. There is no dispute between him and the purchaser of the timber.

Appellant’s complaint that the purchaser, the respondent here, “unlawfully broke and entered upon said lands and cut down and carried away the trees” is without foundation. Under the land contract described in the statement of facts Kottke had the right to sell respondent the timber on the land he had purchased. The terms of the contract not only allowed Kottke to sell the timber but also contemplated that he would do~so if a purchaser appeared.

The contract provided: “In the event of the sale of the standing timber on said lands the entire proceeds thereof with the exception of two hundred ($200) dollars to be payable to the party of the first part.”

The timber was sold to respondent for $1,000, and $800 of this purchase price was deposited to the credit of appellant. Appellant accepted and still has that $800. She does not claim that the purchase price was not a'fair price for the timber.

*509The contract was in writing, fully satisfying the requirements of the statute of frauds, sec. 240.06, Stats. The sale was in accordance with the provisions of that contract.

Appellant urges that the contract between Kottke and respondent for the sale of the timber is not sufficient to satisfy the requirements of sec. 240.06, Stats., since it is not in writing and since it will run for more than one year. There is no need to worry about that contract. Appellant is not the owner of Kottke’s rights as to the liabilities of respondent -to him. The question so far as she is concerned is, did Kottke live up to his land contract with her. The evidence points unequivocally to the fact that he did.

The case of *Schaap v.*Wolf, 173 Wis. 351, 181 N. W. 214, has no application here. In that case the provision of the written contract was eliminated and replaced by the oral agreement. Here, the sale of the timber was in accordance with the terms of the written contract.

There is no need to discuss elements of estoppel as the land contract clearly controls.

We must agree with the learned trial court when he said that the appellant got exactly what she bargained for.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.

Broadfoot, J., took no part.
**Exhibit 35.1**

 

SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

 

I, Erin M. Rohde, certify that:

 

(a)                                 A review of the Servicer’s activities and of its performance under the applicable servicing agreement during the period from January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013 has been made under my supervision.

 

(b)                                 To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the applicable servicing agreement in all material respects throughout the aforementioned period.

 

 
| Dated March 25, 2014 |                                  |
|---------------------------|---------------------------------------|
|                      |                                  |
|                      | /s/ Erin M. Rohde                     |
|                      | Erin M. Rohde                         |
|                      | Assistant Treasurer of                |
|                      | Ford Motor Credit Company LLC,        |
|                      | as Servicer of Ford Credit Auto Lease |
|                      | Trust 2012-B                          |

 

----
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 20 -014 8

_________________ IN THE MATTER OF: M.J.D., A Youth in Need of Care. O R D E R

_________________ Appellant mother of M.J.D. was granted an extension of time to file and serve her opening brief on or before July 31 , 2020 . Appellant mother was advised that no further extensions of time would be granted. The opening brief is now overdue. THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Appellant shall prepare, file and serve the opening brief on appeal no later than August 31 , 2020 . No further extensions will be granted. Failure to file the brief within that time will result in dismissal of this appeal with prejudice and without further notice. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Order to all counsel of record.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 10 2020

08/10/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0148
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-10642

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JESUS DOMINGO MENDIVIL-PACHECO,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:09-CR-2-1

Before GARZA, DENNIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jesus Domingo

Mendivil-Pacheco has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in

accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Mendivil-Pacheco

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 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

February 12, 2010

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

Case: 09-10642 Document: 00511027398 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/12/2010
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>     5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS, CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
AND NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS REPORTED IN FORM 10-Q
FOR THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 26, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>      0000925054
<NAME>     SPECTRIAN CORP /DE/
<MULTIPLIER>     1,000

<S>                                    <C>          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                          APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                            DEC-26-1999
<CASH>                                       13,163
<SECURITIES>                                 36,116     <F1>
<RECEIVABLES>                                33,842
<ALLOWANCES>                                    417
<INVENTORY>                                  26,261
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            113,614
<PP&E>                                       64,694
<DEPRECIATION>                               43,840
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              134,468
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        30,052
<BONDS>                                       1,659
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<COMMON>                                         12
<OTHER-SE>                                  102,745
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                134,468
<SALES>                                     123,595
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            123,595
<CGS>                                        95,763
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                95,763
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             16,039     <F2>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              419
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 584
<INCOME-TAX>                                     74
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             510
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                    510
<EPS-BASIC>                                  0.05     <F3>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.05
<FN>
<F1> Securities, Item 5-02(2), are net of accrued interest and unrealized
     gain/loss.
<F2> Item consists of research and development.
<F3> Item consists of basic earnings per share.
</FN>


</TABLE>
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 7**  **601**

RODERICK DEMEATRICE OAKS , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v. HAROLD CLARK, Director , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Norfolk
. Raymond A. Jackson , District Judge. ( 2 : 13

- cv - 00 674

- RAJ

- TEM )

Submitted : January 15, 2015 Decided: January 21, 2015

Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER , Circuit Judges , and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Roderick Demeatrice Oaks , Appellant Pro Se. Leah A. Darron , OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia , for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PE R CURIAM: Roderick Demeatrice Oaks seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition as time

- barred
. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the
not ice of appeal was not timely filed. Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). The district court’s order was entered on the docket

on September 4 , 2014 . The notice of appeal was filed on October 28, 2014
. ∗ Because Oaks failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny lea ve to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

∗ Because Oaks incorrectly mailed the notice of appeal to a state court, which is under no obligation to forward the notice to the proper district court under 28 U.S.C. § 1631 (2012), Oaks does not benefit from the prison mailbox rule.3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
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  Annual  report of  GiveMePower  Corporation  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-KSB for the period ending June 30, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, William
V.  Walton,  Chief  Executive  Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18
U.S.C. 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 and 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.

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

Date:  October 13, 2005                             By: /s/ WILLIAM V. WALTON
                                                        --------------------
                                                    William V. Walton
                                                    Chief Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 202 (Friday, October 18, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 83918]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-24004]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and USPS 
Ground Advantage[supreg] Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: October 18, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
September 30, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 419 to Competitive Product List. Documents 
are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2024-782, K2024-75.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-24004 Filed 10-17-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 7**  **073**

JAMES CAVANAUGH , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. TRACY JOHNS, Warden , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Distri ct of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. Terrence W. Boyle , District Judge. ( 5:10

- hc

- 02 025

- BO )

Submitted : December 15, 2011 Decided: December 20, 2011

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DAVIS , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Jam es Cavanaugh , Appellant Pro Se. Christina Ann Kelley , BUREAU OF PRISONS, Butner , North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: James Cavanaugh, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’ s order dismissing his 18 U.S.C. § 2241 (2006) petition. On appeal, Cavanaugh argues that the Bureau of Prisons erred in refusing to consider his vested good conduct time in calculating his eligibility for the Elderly Offender Home Detention Pilot Program . We agree with the district court that Cavanaugh had not served the “greater of 10 years o r 75 percent of the term of imprisonment to which [he] was sentenced,” 42 U.S.C. § 17541(g)(5)(A)(ii) (2006), and he therefore was ineligible for the program. See Izzo v. Wiley , 620 F.3d 1257, 1260 (10th Cir. 2010) (“ Under a plain

- language analysis, we hold that the phrase “term of imprisonment to which the offender was sentenced” unambiguously refers to the term imposed by the sentencing court, without any consider ation of good time credit. ”). We therefore affirm the district court’s order on this ground. 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.

AFFIRM ED