alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.1

SOHU.COM INC.

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 Sohu.com Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended
March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Charles Zhang, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Company, certify, pursuant to 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 of the Company as of March 31, 2007 and results of operations of the Company for the three months ended March 31, 2007.



/s/ Charles ZhangCharles Zhang, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of DirectorsMay 8, 2007




-56-
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA F OURTH D ISTRICT

SAMUEL W. BOOTHE , Appellant,

v.

WM SPECIALTY MORTGAGE, LLC , Appellee.

No. 4D 1 9

- 2826

[ March 5, 2020 ]

Appeal of nonfinal order from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Susan Lebow

, Judge; L.T. Case No

. CACE 08

- 008360

.

Samuel W. Boothe

, Plantation

, pro se

.
Nancy M. Wallace of Akerman LLP

, Tallahassee , William P. Heller of Akerman LLP, Fort Lauderdale, and Eric M. Levine of Akerman LLP, West Palm Beach, for appellee

.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed.

G ROSS , C ONNER and K LINGENSMITH , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1810

JOHN S. STRITZINGER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

SAMUEL ASIEDU; SCOTT MATOSCO; SUSAN ZELENIAK,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Columbia. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District 

Judge. (3:15-cv-05111-TLW)

Submitted: November 22, 2016 Decided: November 29, 2016

Before DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John S. Stritzinger, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

John S. Stritzinger appeals the district court’s order 

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

dismissing his complaint for failing to comply with a court 

order. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we grant Stritzinger leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis, deny Stritzinger’s pending motions, and affirm 

for the reasons stated by the district court. Stritzinger v. 

Asiedu, No. 3:15-cv-05111-TLW (D.S.C. June 23, 2016). We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Order filed November 23, 2016 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-16-00396-CR

____________

ROBERT JARRAD CLARK, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 21st District Court

Washington County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 17311

ORDER

This court has determined, pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 

34.5(f) and 34.6(g)(2), that it must inspect the original of State's Exhibits 66 and 

67, CD's.
The clerk of the 21st District Court is directed to deliver to the Clerk of this 

court the original of State's Exhibits 66 and 67, CD's, on or before December 05, 

2016. The Clerk of this court is directed to receive, maintain, and keep safe this 

original exhibit; to deliver it to the justices of this court for their inspection; and, 

upon completion of inspection, to return the original of State's Exhibits 66 and 67, 

CD's, to the clerk of the 21st District Court.

PER CURIAM
Exhibit 32.1

The following certification shall not be deemed filed for purposes of section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or otherwise subject to the liabilities of that section, nor shall it be deemed
incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, whether made before or after the date hereof and irrespective of any general incorporation language in any filings.

CERTIFICATION 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Advanced Analogic Technologies Incorporated, a Delaware corporation, for the third quarter ended September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, each of
the undersigned officers of Advanced Analogic Technologies Incorporated certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his respective knowledge:

(1) the accompanying report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the third quarter ended September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (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 Advanced Analogic Technologies Incorporated for the periods presented therein.

Date: October 30, 2007



/s/ Richard K. WilliamsRichard K. WilliamsChief Executive Officer


Date: October 30, 2007



/s/ Brian R. McDonaldBrian R. McDonaldChief Financial Officer


A signed original of the above certification has been provided to Advanced Analogic
Technologies Incorporated and will be retained by Advanced Analogic Technologies Incorporated and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
October 21, 2013 

### Kevin D. Schlemmer, 

### Chief

# United States Department 

# of

# the Interior NATIONAL PARK SERVICE Kalaupapa National t-Jistorical Park P.O. 2222 Kalaupapa, HI 96742

Tel: 808-567·6802

Essential AirService & Domestic Analysis Division 

## u.s. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJerseys Ave, SE Washington, DC 20590 ;, •....'

··,.,
Subject: Order2013·10-3; Servicing Kalaupapa, Island of MolokaiJ Hawai'i; Service CommencingJanuary 1, 2014 Dear Mr. Schlemmer, Due to the isolated and remote work place at Kalaupapa National Histofical Park, our employees often need to 

### fly out of Kalaupapa forwork-related travel and Makani Kai has provided timely and effective service under the current Essential Air service contract. Sincerely,

Erika Stein Espaniola Superintendent
---

---

EXHIBIT 32.1

# CERTIFICATION

# PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,

# AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I,
Oded Bashan, as Chief Executive Officer of On Track Innovations Ltd. (the
Company) certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted by
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(1)              the
accompanying Amendment No.1 to the Form 20-F report for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed
          with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (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:  October 28 , 2005 |  | BY: /S/ Oded Bashan
Oded BashanChief Executive Officer of the Company
|------------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

84

---

---
#### Carswell vs. Mason, Administrator.

*September 22*

*October 10, 1882.*

*Findings of fact by*a county court are sustained on the ground that they are in accord with the weight of evidence.

APPEAL from the County Court of *Fond du Lae*County.

The complaint alleges the sale, by the plaintiff and one Sewell, under the firm name of Carswell <fe Sewell, of goods and merchandise to the defendant Thomas Mason; that the said firm had been dissolved; that the plaintiff was the owner of the account for such goods and that the defendant was indebted to him thereon in the sum of’ $83.64 and interest. The answer alleges that previous to the purchase of the goods mentioned in the complaint, the defendant had sold bis stock of dry goods to Sewell, who had paid for the same in part only, leaving a balance due to the defendant; that Sewell had sold such dry goods to the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff knowing of the balance due to the defendant had agreed that the same should become a debt of the firm of Carswell & Sewell; and that it was agreed that the goods and merchandise purchased by the defendant from said firm should apply on the balance so due to him. The case was *556tried by tbe court without a jury. The evidence and the findings of the court sufficiently appear from the opinion. The plaintiff appealed from a judgment in favor of the defendant. -

*Elilm*Golmcrn,, for the appellant.

*Be W. G.*Priest, for the respondent.

Cole, 0. J.

The learned county court found, as a fact established by the evidence, that the firm of Carswell & Sewell sold and delivered to the defendant the goods and merchandise mentioned in the complaint, to apply in part payment of the sum of $268.11, the balance found due the defendant when he sold his interest in the partnership to Sewell. The court also found that the partners, the plaintiff and Sewell, agreed to pay that sum. The only question then arising on the record which we need consider is whether there was sufficient evidence to warrant these findings. If there is we cannot disturb them. That there is ample evidence to sustain the findings, it seems to us, cannot be successfully denied. True, the plaintiff says that he never agreed, either on his own behalf of for the firm of Carswell *&*Sewell, to assume the payment of this $268.11, and that the goods purchased by Thomas Mason were not to apply on that account. Mason denies this. Sewell testified that the plaintiff knew the goods, which were purchased by Thomas Mason of the firm of Carswell *&*Sewell, were to be applied on that balance. The testimony also of Miss Mason tends somewhat to corroborate the claim that the goods in question were to be thus applied. In this state of the proofs it is quite manifest that we cannot reverse the findings of the county court in these particulars. They are certainly in accord with the weight of evidence. In this view of the case it is unnecessary to notice the other points relied on for a reversal of the judgment.

*By the*Oourt.— The judgment of the county court is affirmed.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-82,334-01

EX PARTE APOLINAR MARQUEZ CAMPOSANO, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 08-05-04380-CR IN THE 284TH DISTRICT COURT

FROM MONTGOMERY COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant entered an open plea of guilty to

murder, and was sentenced to thirty years’ imprisonment. The trial court certified that he had

retained the right to appeal matters related to sentencing.

Applicant contends that his appointed appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance

because he failed to timely file a notice of appeal. Appellate counsel has filed an affidavit in which

he states that he did not timely file the notice of appeal, although he does not recall why not. 
2

Appellate counsel also states that Applicant never wavered in his desire to pursue an appeal in this

case.

The trial court has determined that appellate counsel failed to timely file a notice of appeal. 

We find that Applicant is entitled to the opportunity to file an out-of-time appeal of matters related

to sentencing in Cause No. 08-05-04380-CR from the 284th District Court of MontgomeryCounty. 

Applicant is ordered returned to that time at which he may give a written notice of appeal so that he

may then, with the aid of counsel, obtain a meaningful appeal. Within ten days of the issuance of

this opinion, the trial court shall determine whether Applicant is indigent. If Applicant is indigent

and wishes to be represented by counsel, the trial court shall immediately appoint an attorney to

represent Applicant on direct appeal. All time limits shall be calculated as if the sentence had been

imposed on the date on which the mandate of this Court issues. We hold that, should Applicant

desire to prosecute an appeal, he must take affirmative steps to file a written notice of appeal in the

trial court within 30 days after the mandate of this Court issues.

Copies of this opinion shall be sent to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Correctional

Institutions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division. 

Delivered: November 19, 2014

Do not publish
================================================================================


                                                                    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 Hudson's Grill International, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2009, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Periodic
Report"), I, David Roff, 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 Periodic 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 Periodic Report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      the Company.


     Dated: July 29, 2009


     /s/ "David Roff"


     David Roff
     Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL RICHARD BLOOM, III,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D15-5579

_____________________________/

Opinion filed November 7, 2016.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Okaloosa County.

Michael Flowers, Judge.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public 

Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant; Paul Richard Bloom, III, pro se, Appellant. 

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, C.J., JAY and WINSOR, JJ., CONCUR.
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NOS. WR-91,936-03, - 04, -05, -06
IN RE THE S TATE O F TEXAS E X REL. KIM OGG , Relator
v. 228TH DIST RICT COURT
ON AP P LICATIONS FOR WRITS OF M ANDAM US IN THE 228T H DISTRICT COURT F ROM HARRIS COUNTY
Per curiam . Keller, P.J., filed a dissenting opinion joined by Y eary, J.; Herve

y, J., filed a concurring opinion joined by Newell and Walker, J.J.; Newe ll, J., filed a concurring opinion joined by Herve

y and Walker, J.J. O R D E R The Har ris County District Att o rn ey , in these mandamus applications, asks this Court to order the trial court to rescind its order s compelling the State to make discove ry disclosures to the Real Parties in Intere st. Be fore its filing in this Court, the State soug ht mandamus relief in the First2

Court of Appea ls, as it is require d to do, and the First Court denied relief
. Padilla v. McD aniel , 122 1 S
. W.3d 805 (Tex.Crim.App. 2003). This Court issued stay s of the trial court’s order s pending dispositi on of the manda

mus applications. We deny mandamus re lief. See I

n re State ex

rel. W eek s , 391 S.W .3d 117 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013); In re M

cCann , 422 S.W .3d 701 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). The stay s of the trial court’s or ders a

re lifted.
Filed: September

15, 2021 Do not publish

The unde rlying c ases a

re: Texas v. Arm strong , Appea l Nos. 01-20-00644-CR (trial no. 1 1680891), 01-20- 00645-CR (trial no. 1684289), and 01- 20-00646-CR (trial no. 1684291) ( the - 05 mandamus); Texas v. Re yna , Appea l Nos. 01-20-00647-CR (trial no. 1680886) , 01-20-00648- CR (trial no. 1680887), 01-20-00649- CR (trial no. 1680888), and 01-20- 00650-CR (trial no. 1680897) (the - 06 mandamus); Texas v. G onzales , Appea l No. 01-20-00609- CR (trial no. 1680894) (the - 03 mandamus); and Texas v. W ood , Appea l Nos. 01-20-00612-CR (trial no. 1680890) and 01- 20-00617-CR (trial no. 1680898) ( the -04 manda mus).
# C_2014439EN.01000101.xml

| 8.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 439/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 439/1

---

Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

Official Journal of the European Union

(2014/C 439/01)

Last publication

Last publication

OJ C 431, 1.12.2014

Past publications

Past publications

OJ C 421, 24.11.2014

OJ C 409, 17.11.2014

OJ C 395, 10.11.2014

OJ C 388, 3.11.2014

OJ C 380, 27.10.2014

OJ C 372, 20.10.2014

These texts are available on:

EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

---
EXHIBIT 99

                                Certification
                                     of
  TAC Asset Corp. pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
regarding Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2002


     Pursuant  to  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections
(a)  and  (b)  of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States  Code),
each  of  the  undersigned officers of TAC Asset Corp., a Nevada  corporation
(the "Company"), does hereby certify that:

     1.  The  Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended
         June   30,  2002  (the  "Form  10-QSB")  fully  complies  with   the
         requirements  of  Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange
         Act of 1934, as amended; and

     2.  Information  contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly  presents,  in  all
         material   respects,  the  financial  condition   and   results   of
         operations of the Company.



     Dated:   August 12, 2002          /s/ Anthony N. DeMint
                                        Anthony N. DeMint
                                       President/ Chief Accounting Officer
#### Harding vs. Tibbils and others.

May 15.

A tax deed conveys as good a title as any other conveyance, if the statute under which it was executed was in all respects complied with.

Where tax deeds are admitted in evidence against the objection of a party, but the deeds themselves are not set out in a bill of exceptions, this court will presume that they were good in form and substance.

EEEOE to the Circuit Court for *Ozaulcee*County.

*H.*Gunning, for plaintiff in error.

*A. M.*Blair, for defendant in error.

-% *@our%*

Cole, J.

This was an action of trespass for entering tbe close of tbe plaintiff in error, and taking and carrying away twenty cords of wood. Tbe defendants in error, in their answer, set up and claim that tbe *locus in quo*was tbe close and freehold of one Benjamin Blake, and that at bis request and as bis servants, they entered thereon and did all tbe acts complained of. Tbe bill of exceptions is quite meager, and tbe printed case much more so. Indeed it is impossible, from tbe latter, to obtain any idea of tbe case. And perhaps it is proper to state that this printed case does not in any degree comply with tbe requirements of Eule 8 of this court, and to admonish counsel that their cases will be dismissed unless tbe rule is more fully complied with. On referring to tbe bill of exceptions in tbe judgment roll, we find that after tbe plaintiff in error bad gone through with bis evidence and rested, Blake was called as a witness for tbe defendants. He testified that be was in possession of tbe land, under certain tax deeds, at tbe time of *233the alleged, trespass, and that the defendants were his servants and removed the wood at his direction. The deeds were likewise offered in evidence. It appears that the deeds were objected to on various grounds, but as the deeds are not set out in the bill of exceptions, we are unable to say whether the objections to them were well taken or not. The circuit court instructed the jury, among other things, that a tax deed conveyed to the grantee therein named as good a title as any other conveyance, provided the statute under which it was given had been in all respects complied with. As a proposition of law this instruction is indubitably correct. The tax deeds not being before us for our inspection, we must presume they were good in form and substance and authorized the instruction above referred to.

As this disposes of the case, it is not necessary to allude to the other questions discussed by counsel.

The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.
# C_2015305EN.01000101.xml

| 16.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 305/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 305/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7707 — Cinven/Synlab)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 305/01)

On 9 September 2015, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7707. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7707. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---