alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<pre>
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND

CHIEF FINANCIAL 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 on Form 10-KSB of Vote Power Corporation
(the "Company") for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 (the "Report"),
the undersigned hereby certify in their capacities as Chief Executive Officer
and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, respectively, 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 results of operations of the Company.


Dated: April 22, 2005         By:  /S/ Bob Martyn
                                   -------------------------
                                   Bob Martyn
                                   President
                                   (principal executive officer)



Dated: April 22, 2005         By:  /S/ Inti Shaikh
                                   -------------------------
                                   Inti Shaikh
                                   Secretary/Treasurer and
                                   Chief Financial Officer
                                   (principal financial officer)


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signatures
that appear in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be
retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 32.02

Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to

18 U.S.C. Section 1350

and Securities Exchange Act Rule 13a-14(b)

In connection with the Annual Report of Concur Technologies, Inc. (Concur) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, John F. Adair, as Chief Financial Officer of Concur, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and Securities Exchange Act Rule 13a-14(b), that to my knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 Concur.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                         |  |  |  |    |  |                      |  |                        
|------------------------ |  |  |  | -- |  | -------------------- |  | -----------------------
|                         |  |  | 
|Dated: December 14, 2007 |  |  |  | By |  | /s/    JOHN F. ADAIR
|                         |  |  |  |    |  |                      |  | John F. Adair          
|                         |  |  |  |    |  |                      |  | Chief Financial Officer

This certification accompanies this report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 and shall not be deemed to be filed by Concur for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Order entered May 27 , 2022

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 21

- 00844

- CV

ALYSSE BARLOW , Appellant

V.

KENDALL RICHARDSON , Appellee

On Appeal from the 298th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 19

- 16151

O RDER

Before the Court is appellee’s May 24, 2022 unopposed second motion for

an extension of time to file her brief. We GRANT the motion and extend the time

to June 30, 2022 . We ca ution appellee that further extension requests will be

disfavored.

/s/ CRAIG SMITH JUSTICE
No. 53—2167.

#### Frank F. Cole v. John T. Cosgrove.

This was trover, by Cosgrove against Cole, to recover damages for the wrongful conversion of a stock of boots and shoes which had been pledged by the former to the latter. The plaintiff", upon the verdict ®f the jury, had judgment for §7,842.55, *638and defendant brings error to this court. The evidence shows, beyond controversy, the commission by Cole while such pledgee of fraudulent acts respecting said goods, so inconsistent with his duties as pledgee thereof as to terminate the bailment and render him liable in this action for the loss of the goods. In such a case errors in the instructions not affecting the measure of damages become immaterial, if any such exist and as the pleadings stand the court finds none, as respects damages, of so serious a character as not to be remedied here. Upon full condderation of all the evidence, the court is of opinion that the damages shown amounted to the sum of five thousand and five hundred dollars, and that all given by the jury in excess of that amount are excessive. Judgment mod ified.

Judge below, Rollin S. Williamson.

Attorneys, for plaintiff in error, Mr. Robert Her-vet and Messrs Barnum, Rubens *&*Ames ;

for defendant in error, Messrs. Sleeper *&*Whiton and Mr. L. M. Shreve.

Opinion filed Jan. 6, 1886.

Opinion Per Curiam.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 3664

_____________________________
R OBERT A. G ELSEY ,
Petitioner
,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Respondent

.

_____________________________

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpu s

— Original Jurisdiction

.

February 27, 2019

P ER C URIAM

. Upon consideration of Petitioner’s response filed on December 26, 2018, this case is hereby dismissed.

R OWE , B ILBREY , and K ELSEY , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disp osition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Robert A. Gelsey, pro se
, Petitioner

. Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Respondent

.
EXHIBIT 23


                 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration 
Statement of Network Plus Corp. on Form S-1 (File No. 333-64663) of our 
report dated March 17, 1999, on our audits of the consolidated 
financial statements and the financial statements schedule of Network 
Plus Corp., as of December 31, 1998 and 1997, and for each of the three 
years in the period ended December 31, 1998, which reports are included 
in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.


							PriceWaterhouseCoopers LLP


Boston, Massachusetts
March 26, 1999
#### Shiuh Chu Lu, Appellant, v Gary S. Lalchan, Respondent.

[773 NYS2d 286]

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered August 15, 2002, which denied plaintiffs motion for entry of a default judgment, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as academic.

The order denying plaintiff a default judgment for failure to submit proof of service was rendered academic by a subsequent order granting *plaintiff’s*motion for an extension of time to serve and file the summons and complaint. If we were to address the propriety of the order, we would affirm, since, as the motion court noted in denying vacatur of said order, service by mail is not sufficient to obtain jurisdiction. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Tom, Sullivan, Ellerin and Williams, JJ.
II

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 520

For the relief of Janina Altagracia Castillo-Rojas and her husband, Diogenes

Patricio Rojas.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 3, 1999

Mr. DURBIN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

For the relief of Janina Altagracia Castillo-Rojas and her

husband, Diogenes Patricio Rojas.

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

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENCE.

4 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for pur5 poses of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.

6 1101 et seq.), Janina Altagracia Castillo-Rojas and her

7 husband, Diogenes Patricio Rojas, shall be held and con8 sidered to have been lawfully admitted to the United

9 States for permanent residence as of the date of the enact10 ment of this Act upon payment of the required visa fees.
2

•S 520 IS

1 SEC. 2. REDUCTION OF NUMBER OF AVAILABLE VISAS.

2 Upon the granting of permanent residence to Janina

3 Altagracia Castillo-Rojas and her husband, Diogenes

4 Patricio Rojas, as provided in this Act, the Secretary of

5 State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by the ap6 propriate number during the current fiscal year the total

7 number of immigrant visas available to natives of the

8 country of the aliens’ birth under section 203(a) of the

9 Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)).

Æ
<pre>

Exhibit 31.1

Certification of the Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes - Oxley Act of 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as created by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Ludlum
Construction Co., Inc. (the "Company") hereby certifies that:

(i) the Annual Report on Form 10 K-SB of the Company for the
annual period ended December 31, 2002 , as amended,
(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 as of, and for, the periods
presented in the Report.

              				/s/   FLOYD D. WILKENSON
						          ---------------------------
              				Floyd D. Wilkenson
			      	        Authorized Agent/Sole Director
			      	        Appointed by Board of Directors on
                      March 19, 2004

Dated:  December 14, 2004



Certification of the Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes - Oxley Act of 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as created by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes - Oxley Act of 2002 the undersigned officer of Ludlum
Construction Co., Inc. (the "Company") hereby certifies that:

(i) the Annual Report on Form 10 K-SB of the Company for the
annual period ended December 31, 2002 , as amended, (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 as of, and for, the periods
presented in the Report.

              				/s/   FLOYD D. WILKENSON
						          ---------------------------
              				Floyd D. Wilkenson
			      	        Authorized Agent/Sole Director
			      	        Appointed by Board of Directors on
                      March 19, 2004

Dated:  December 14, 2004
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                               CERTIFICATE OF THE
                           CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF
                             TOWER AUTOMOTIVE, INC.

     Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350):

     I, Anthony A. Barone, Chief Financial Officer of Tower Automotive, Inc.,
certify, to the best of my knowledge and belief, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) that:

     (1) The quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2002, which this statement accompanies, fully complies with
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and;

     (2) The information contained in this quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2002, fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Tower Automotive,
Inc.


                                         TOWER AUTOMOTIVE, INC.


Date: November 13, 2002                  By: /s/ Anthony A. Barone
                                            --------------------------------
                                               Anthony A. Barone
                                         Its:  Chief Financial Officer
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-1147

_____________________________

FELIX L. CUEVAS-RODRIGUEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

_____________________________

Petition for Writ of Mandamus—Original Jurisdiction.

April 13, 2018

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of mandamus is denied on the merits.

MAKAR, WINOKUR, and WINSOR, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Felix L. Cuevas-Rodriguez, pro se, Petitioner.
2

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ERICK DANILO SOSA-SALGERO,

AKA Daniel Sosa,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 11-70807

Agency No. A088-724-039

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 15, 2012 ** 

Before: CANBY, GRABER and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Erick Danilo Sosa-Salgero, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for

review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order dismissing his appeal from an

FILED

MAY 17 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
immigration judge's denial of his application for cancellation of removal. Our

jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency's discretionary determination that

Sosa-Salgero failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his

United States citizen child. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B); Mendez–Castro v. Mukasey,

552 F.3d 975, 979 (9th Cir. 2009).

Sosa-Salgero’s contention, that the Board failed to properly consider and

weigh all evidence of hardship, does not raise a colorable due process claim.

Martinez–Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
<Page>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned officer of ING Insurance
Company of America (the "Company") hereby certifies that, to the officer's
knowledge, the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
June 30, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


August 12, 2004                By /s/ David A. Wheat
----------------                  ----------------------------------------------
     (Date)                       David A. Wheat
                                  Director, Senior Vice President, and
                                   Chief Financial Officer
[No. 66900-7.

En Banc.]

Considered November 10, 1998.

Decided December 10, 1998.

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Joel Nichols, *Petitioner.*

*860
      *Joel T. Nichols,*pro se.

*James H. Krider, Prosecuting Attorney,*and *Breck W. Marsh, Deputy,*for respondent.

Per Curiam

Joel Nichols was convicted of second degree assault and attempted first degree robbery. Using an *861expedited *Anders*procedure,1 the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal and granted defense counsel’s motion to withdraw. We granted review and remanded for reconsideration in light of *State v. Hairston,*133 Wn.2d 534, 946 P.2d 397 (1997). On remand, the Court of Appeals again affirmed Mr. Nichols’ convictions, but remanded to correct a sentencing error. Mr. Nichols contends that the Court of Appeals has still failed to comply with *Anders.*We agree, and therefore grant review and reverse the Court of Appeals.

When criminal defense counsel finds the appeal to be wholly frivolous, counsel “should so advise the court and request permission to withdraw.” *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. at 744. That request must be “accompanied by a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.” *Id.*The defendant must be given a copy of the brief and an opportunity to raise any additional issues he wishes. “[T]he court—not counsel—then proceeds, after a full examination of all the proceedings, to decide whether the case is wholly frivolous.” *Id. See State v. Hairston,*133 Wn.2d at 540-41.

In its first decision in this case, the Court of Appeals examined only those portions of the record pertinent to the potential issues identified by counsel in the *Anders*brief. In its second review on remand, the Court of Appeals discovered one nonfrivolous issue—the trial court’s failure to specify the period of community placement. *See State v. Broadaway,*133 Wn.2d 118, 135, 942 P.2d 363 (1997). Having identified that issue, the court should not have proceeded with the case as an *Anders*appeal. If an appellate court “concludes that there are nonfrivolous issues to be raised, it must appoint counsel to pursue the appeal and direct that counsel to prepare an advocate’s brief before deciding the merits.” *McCoy v. Court of Appeals,*486 U.S. 429, 444, 108 S. Ct. 1895, 100 L. Ed. 2d 440 (1988); *accord Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed.*8622d 300 (1988); *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. at 744. It is not sufficient that the court granted relief on the one issue it found to be meritorious. To the contrary, the court “committed an even more serious error when it failed to appoint new counsel after finding that the record supported . . . modification of his sentence. As a result, petitioner was left without constitutionally adequate representation on appeal.” *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. at 81.

The Court of Appeals decision is reversed. The case is remanded to that court with directions to reappoint counsel to file an advocate’s *(non-Anders)*brief on Mr. Nichols’ behalf.

*See Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967).
EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF THE INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


To the Board of Directors
EVCI Career Colleges Holding Corp.


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Prospectus
constituting part of the Registration Statement of EVCI Career Colleges Holding
Corp. on Forms S-3 (#333-115699, 333-114711 and 333-110567) and Forms S-8
(#333-120753, 333-34158, 333-72080 and 333-102310) of our report dated March 6,
2006, except for Note 9, as to which the date is March 31, 2006, the last
paragraph of Note 10, as to which the date is March 8, 2006 and Note 16, as to
which the date is April 10, 2006, on the financial statements of EVCI Career
Colleges Holding Corp. as of December 31, 2005 and 2004 and for each of the
three years in the period ended December 31, 2005, appearing in the annual
report on Form 10-K/A Amendment No. 2 of EVCI Career Colleges Holding Corp. for
the year ended December 31, 2005. We also consent to the reference of our firm
under the caption "Experts" contained in such Registration Statements.



/s/ GOLDSTEIN GOLUB KESSLER LLP
GOLDSTEIN GOLUB KESSLER LLP
New York, New York

May 15, 2006
[HUMATECH, INC. LETTERHEAD]

October 22, 2001

Jonathan Matteson
2940 East Broadway, #230
Mesa, Arizona 85204

Dear Sir,

As agreed, the Board of Directors of HumaTech, Inc. has fully authorized the
issuance of 15,000 shares of unrestricted common stock in HumaTech, Inc. This
is issued to you for work performed for the benefit of HumaTech, Inc.

Thank you,

/s/ David Williams                     /s/ Jonathan Matteson
____________________                   ______________________________
David Williams                         Accepted, Jonathan Matteson
President, CEO
HumaTech, Inc.
#### The State v. The United States Express Company.

1. Intoxicating Liquors: held eor sale by express company: seizube AND DESTRUCTION: costs. Intoxicating liquors imported into this state by express, and held by the express company as agent for the consignor, to be delivered to the consignee upon payment of the purchase price, are subject to be seized and destroyed as contraband property in a proceeding against the liquors. It is wholly immaterial in such case whether the officers of the express company know the character of the property, or the uses to which it is to be put; and where the company voluntarily appears in the proceeding and claims the liquors, the costs may properly be taxed against it.

*Appeal from Branhlin District Court.*

Saturday, December 11.

This is a proceeding under the statute, by which certain intoxicating liquors in the possession of the United States Express Company were seized and destroyed. The express company appeared and claimed the liquors, and in a trial before a justice of the peace the liquors were condemned and ordered to be destroyed. The express company appealed to the district court, where a like judgment and order were entered, and the costs of the proceeding were taxed to the express company, from which order this appeal is taken.

*■Henley <& Hemingway,*for appellant.

*A. J. Baher, Attorney-general,*for the State.

Botheoce, J.

The liquors seized were such as are prohibited from being sold in this state. There were several packages of the liquor. Some had been shipped from Albert Lea, Minnesota, and some from Bock Island, Illinois, consigned to parties at Hampton, Eranklin county. They were carried by the express company, and held by it for delivery to the parties upon the payment of the purchase price. They were therefore the property of the consignors, and the express company was the agent of the consignors, with authority to *272transfer the title to tlie property upon payment of the purchase price. The property was therefore contraband under sections 1542, 1543, and 1553 of the Code, as amended-by chapter 143 of the Laws of the Twentieth General Assembly.

The liquor was held for sale; and, -as it is a proceeding against the property, it is wholly immaterial whether the officers of the express company knew the character of the property, or the uses to which it was to be put. It is its duty, under the statute, to know whether goods it receives for shipment are such as the law authorizes to be bartered and sold. It cannot be allowed to make itself an agent of one who is violating the laws of the state. It is to be remembered that this is not a criminal proceeding against the express company. It is a voluntary party to the proceeding.

AeEIRMED.