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

Certification of Principal Executive Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350

(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Capella Education Company (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
I, Stephen G. Shank, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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 the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                    
|------------------------------------
|/s/ Stephen G. Shank                
|Stephen G. Shank                    
|Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
|November 1, 2007                    

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 and shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.

A signed original 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.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                              CONSENT OF KPMG LLP

The Board of Directors
Tumbleweed Communications Corp.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
(Nos. 333-84683, 333-43194, 333-48636 and 333-49492) on Form S-8 of Tumbleweed
Communications Corp. of our report dated January 24, 2001, relating to the
consolidated balance sheets of Tumbleweed Communications Corp. and subsidiaries
as of December 31, 2000 and 1999, and the related consolidated statements of
operations, stockholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the
three-year period ended December 31, 2000, which report appears in the
December 31, 2001 annual report on Form 10-K of Tumbleweed Communications Corp.

/s/ KPMG LLP

Mountain View, California
March 29, 2000
Exhibit 4.70

	 
	 
	 


Power of Attorney


 


I, Jiangming Dong, the shareholder of Beijing Star World Technology
Company Limited (“Beijing Star World ”), hold 35% equity interest in Beijing Star World. I, hereby, authorize
Qizhi Software (Beijing) Co., Ltd.(“ Qizhi Software ”) to exercise all the shareholder rights in connection
with my .35% equity interest in Beijing Star World and irrevocably authorize Qizhi Software to exercise the following rights during
the term of this power of attorney:


 


I hereby authorize Qizhi Software, as my attorney-in-fact, to
exercise on my behalf, all the shareholder rights in connection with my 35% equity interest in Beijing Star World in accordance
with laws and the Articles of Association of Beijing Star World, including but not limited to: the right to propose to summon shareholders’
meetings, to receive notice regarding convening and agenda of shareholders’ meetings, to attend shareholders’ meetings
and to exercise the voting rights attached to my 35% equity interest in Beijing Star World at the shareholders’ meeting (including
voting on matters such as designation and appointment of directors, general manager, chief financial operator and other senior
management of Beijing Star World, dividends distribution plan and etc., as my authorized representative on the shareholders’
meeting), sell or transfer my 35% equity interest in Beijing Star World.


 


Qizhi Software is entitled to appoint another individual designated
by its board of directors (or executive directors) to exercise the rights authorized by Beijing Star World under this power of
attorney.


 


Unless the early termination of Business Operation Agreement
jointly executed by Beijing Star World, Qizhi Software, Zhenyu Xie, Zhengyu Chen and I, no matter for whatever reasons, the term
of this power of attorney is ten (10) years upon the signing date of this power of attorney. If this power of attorney is expired,
I shall agree to extend the term of this power of attorney as requested by Qizhi Software.


 


[The remainder of this page intentionally
left blank]






    	 



    	 



    

 


[This is the signature page]


 


 


	Authorizer:	 
	Jianming Dong	 
	 	 
	/s/ Jianming Dong	 
	Date: December 17, 2009	 
	 	
         

         
	 
	Authorizee:	 
	Qizhi Software (Beijing) Co., Ltd.	 
	 	 	 
	(Chop):	/s/ [Company Stamp of Qizhi Software (Beijing) Co., Ltd.]	 
	Legal Representative/Authorized Representative:	/s/ Hongyi Zhou	 
	Date: December 17, 2009
Exhibit 31.1 

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO RULE 

13A-14 OF THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE ACT OF1934 

AS AMENDED, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE 

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

I, Patrick J. Kealy, Chief Executive Officer and President of Star Energy Corporation (the“Company”), certify that: 

1.     I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB/A of the Company; 

2.     Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

3.     Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4.     The Company’s other certifying officer and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Company and have: 

a.     Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theCompany, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

b.     Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

c.     Disclosed in this report any change in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Company’s most recent fiscal quarter (in the case of anannual report, the fourth fiscal quarter) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

5.     The Company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Company’s auditors and theaudit committee of the Company’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

a.     Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Company’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and 

b.     Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting 

Date: October 15, 2008
Martin, Michael (OST) 

From: Ranell Fenchak <ranellfenchak@flyjohnstownairport.com> 

Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 2:03 PM 

To: Devany, Dennis (OST); Martin, Michael (OST) 

Cc: cpillar@embarqnnail.com; 'Rich Weaver'; 'William C. Polacek' 

Subject: Silver Ainways 

Importance: High 

Mr. DeVany and Mr. Martin, 

CO 

^ po o 

I would like to express our interest and support of Silver Airways serving as the carrier for John'S^awrt^d Altoona 

Markets. """ 

We have spoke to Mickey Bowman and he has given us an informative presentation of SUver Airways and are in 

continue correspondence with them regarding questions and ideas of how they are able to best serve our 

communities. 

We hope to see Silver be placed in our market for continued air service. 

RaNell Fenchak 

Manager 

Phone: 814-536-0002 

Fax: 814-539-5787 

ranellfenchak@flyjohnstownairport.com
Exhibit 2

                                 Plan of Merger
           (Radale Imports - California into Radale Imports - Nevada)

         This Plan of Merger  ("the  Plan") is entered into on March 16, 2005 by
and between Radale  Imports,  Inc., a California  corporation  ("Radale  Imports
California")  and Radale Imports,  Inc., a Nevada  corporation  ("Radale Imports
Nevada").

         In  consideration  of the mutual  promises and  undertakings  set forth
below, the parties agree as follows:

         Terms of the transaction.  Radale Imports California and Radale Imports
Nevada will merge. Radale Imports Nevada will be the surviving corporation.  All
outstanding  shares of common stock of Radale Imports California will convert in
the  merger to the same  number of  shares  of  common  stock of Radale  Imports
Nevada. Both companies have the same number of authorized shares of common stock
and authorized  preferred  stock - 40 million shares of common stock,  par value
$0.001,  and 10 million shares of preferred stock,  par value $0.001.  After the
merger  there  will be the same  number of shares of common  stock  outstanding.
There are no shares of preferred stock issued.

         The parties shall submit this Plan to their respective shareholders for
approval or  rejection.  Should  Radale  Imports  California  obtain the written
approval of the holders of a majority of the outstanding  shares, an Information
Statement  shall  be  filed  with  the SEC and,  when  approved,  mailed  to the
shareholders  of Radale Imports  California.  The merger  documents may be filed
with  the  Secretaries  of  State  of  both  jurisdictions  20  days  after  the
Information   Statement  is  mailed  to  the   shareholders  of  Radale  Imports
California.


         Radale Imports, Inc.,                       Radale Imports, Inc.,
         a California corporation                    a Nevada corporation


         By: /s/ Lee D. Dodson                       By: /s/ Lee D. Dodson
            ------------------------                    ------------------------
            Lee D. Dodson, President                    Lee D. Dodson, President
Exhibit 32

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 Simon Property Group, L.P. (the "Company"), on Form 10-K for the period ending
December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|/S/  DAVID SIMONDavid Simon
Chief Executive Officer
    of Simon Property Group, Inc., General Partner
March 16, 2006                                              |  | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |  | 
|/S/  STEPHEN E. STERRETTStephen E. Sterrett
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
    of Simon Property Group, Inc., General Partner
March 16, 2006 |  | 

123

---



QuickLinks
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

              CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 333-32545) pertaining to the 1997 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, 1993
Stock Option Plan, and the 1997 Directors' Stock Option Plan of Cardima, Inc. of
our report dated February 2, 2000, except for Note 7, as to which the date is
February 18, 2000, with respect to the financial statements of Cardima, Inc.
included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1999.

                                                           /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Palo Alto, California
March 30, 2000
Exhibit 99.15

News
Release
March 21, 2000

Trading Symbols:TRBD (EASDAQ)

TURBODYNE SETTLES WITH ASENSIO & CO., INC.

Carpinteria, CAMarch 21, 2000Turbodyne Technologies Inc. (EASDAQ:TRBD) CEO
Gerhard Delf announced today that Turbodyne has settled its lawsuit against Manuel Asensio and Asensio & Company, Inc.

Turbodyne
filed suit against Asensio on December 16, 1998 in Los Angeles County Superior Court. As part of the settlement agreement, Asensio & Co., Inc. agreed to
issue the following press release:

On
August 4, 1998 Asensio & Company, Inc. announced that it had initiated research coverage of shares of Turbodyne Technologies, Inc.'s common stock.
Following the initiation of coverage, trading was halted by NASDAQ and EASDAQ. Turbodyne was directed to release complete and accurate information on certain contracts and agreements and to take steps
to ensure that future press releases are timely, complete and accurate.

Between
June and October of 1999, Turbodyne made a series of management changes, including the resignation of certain members of its Board of Directors and the
appointment of new members. Turbodyne has announced that its new management included certain individuals who have significant educational and work experience in the automotive industry.

Asensio &
Company, Inc. has not conducted any significant research or due diligence on Turbodyne's product development efforts or the market potential of its products in
over a year. However, while Turbodyne did not invent the electrically assisted turbocharger, it has developed and patented what it contends are key technologies for the electrically assisted
turbocharger.

Turbodyne
and Asensio have fully and completely resolved all claims and issues between them.

Turbodyne
Technologies Inc., a California based high technology company, specializes in the development of charging technology for internal combustion engines plus the development and
manufacturing of high-tech assemblies for electrically assisted turbochargers and superchargers. Turbodyne Technologies Inc.'s headquarters is located in Carpinteria, CA; the European business
location is Frankfurt, Germany.

Contacts:

Corporate
Communications, Peter Weichselbraun (800) 566-1130
VP Group FinanceInvestor Relations, Ken Fitzpatrick (800) 566-1130
European Investor Relations, Markus Kumbrink +49-69-975-44-665

---

QuickLinks
Order entered March 23, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-00613-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF M.A.H., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 417th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 417-51726-2011

ORDER

We GRANT appellee’s March 20, 2015 second unopposed motion for extension of time 

to file brief and ORDER the brief be filed no later than April 23, 2015.

/s/ CRAIG STODDART 

JUSTICE
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

ELIE RAPHAEL,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D17-2915

[October 19, 2017]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Geoffrey D. Cohen, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 14 13281CF10A.

Elie Raphael, Bonifay, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GERBER, C.J., WARNER and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### Wruble *v.*Day, Appellant.

*Appeals*— Quashing *appeals*— Sheriff’s *interpleader*— Revocation *of prior order.*

An order made during the pendency of proceedings on a sheriff’s interpleader, revoking a prior order directing the sheriff to proceed to execution, is an interlocutory order from which no appeal lies.

Submitted Feb. 25, 1907.

Appeal, No. 10, Jan. T., 1907, by defendants, from order of C. P. Luzerne Co., Oct. T., 1905, No. 596, revoking prior order directing sheriff to proceed to execution in case of B. F. Wruble v. C. Day & Bro.

Before Rice, P. J., Porter, Henderson, Morrison, Orlady, Head and Beaver, JJ.

Appeal quashed.

Rule for sheriff’s interpleader.

From the record it appeared that the court made the following orders:

Now, September 28, 1905, the rule for sheriff’s interpleader having been made absolute on September 11, 1905, and more than two weeks having elapsed since that time, and the claimant, B. F. Wruble, having failed to file his statement of title together with a bond, as required by this honorable court and by law, the sheriff is directed to proceed witli the execution.

Now, October 4, 1905, order of court made on September 11, 1905, is hereby reconsidered and' rule reinstated and ordered to be placed on argument list for next tejan.

Now, October 4, 1905, rule in above case, which was made absolute on September 11, 1905, having been i’einstated and ordered to be placed on argument list for next term, the order of court made on September 28, 1905, clii'ecting the sheiiff to proceed with execution, is hereby revoked and set aside.

*Errors assigned*were the above orders of October 4, 1905, quoting them.

*James E. Scouton*and *L. A.*Dymond, for appellants.

*M. H.*Salsliurg, *W. Alfred Valentine*and *Gr. E. Lazarus*for appellee.

The order was interlocutory: Cupples Wooden *101Ware Co. v. Howe, 164 Pa. 85 ; Mitchell on Motions and Rules, 30; Loomis v. Lane, 29 Pa. 242.

October 7, 1907:

Opinion by

Head, J.,

We think it manifest that the order or decree upon which the present appeal is founded was but an interlocutory order in a proceeding still pending and undetermined in the court below. When that issue shall have been tried it may result in a verdict and judgment in favor of the execution creditor, the present appellant.

Such a judgment would be a final one and furnish the basis upon which a valid appeal could be rested by the party aggrieved, who, in that event would hardly be these appellants. Should the final judgment b.e adverse to the defendants their right of appeal would then be unquestioned. They could then properly raise and be heard upon every question which they now seek to have disposed of.

Appeal quashed.
Exhibit 32.2



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 Unigene Laboratories, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Jay Levy, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(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 position and results of operations of the Company.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Jay Levy           
|Jay Levy               
|Chief Financial Officer
|May 17, 2004           



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Unigene Laboratories, Inc. and will be retained by Unigene Laboratories, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
lbuy_ex45.htm

EXHIBIT 4.5
  
  
  
  
 	 
	1
	

	 

  
  
 	 
	2
	

	 

  
  
 	 
	3
	

	 

  
  
 	 
	4
	

	 

  
  
 	 
	5
	

	 

  
  
 	 
	6
	

	 

  
  
 	 
	7
	

	 

  
  
 	 
	8
	

	 

  
  
 	 
	9
	

	 

  
  
 	 
	10
	

	 

  
  
 	 
	11
	

	 

  
  
 	 
	12
	

	 

  
  
 	 
	13
	

	 

  
  
 	 
	14
	

	 

  
  
 	 
	15
	

	 

  
  
 	 
	16
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RICKEY DENNIS COOPER,

Petitioner-Appellant,

 v.

JO GENTRY, Warden,

Respondent-Appellee.

No. 15-15755

D.C. No. 

3:97-cv-00222-JCM-WGC

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

James C. Mahan, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted November 17, 2016

San Francisco, California

Before: MELLOY,** CLIFTON, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. 

The Nevada Supreme Court adjudicated Rickey Cooper’s claims under

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264

(1959), on the merits. See Cooper v. Neven, 641 F.3d 322, 333 (9th Cir. 2011). As

FILED

DEC 02 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The Honorable Michael J. Melloy, United States Circuit Judge for the

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation.
Page 2 of 3

a result, we must review the Nevada Supreme Court’s ruling under the deferential

standard prescribed by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). 

The Nevada Supreme Court determined that there was no “reasonable

possibility” that Donnell Wells’ recanted testimony or the prosecution’s failure to

disclose the payment of money to Wells affected the outcome of the trial. The

court based its conclusion on the fact that other evidence at trial established

Cooper’s guilt. For example, other eyewitnesses testified that Cooper was in the

front passenger seat of the car from which gun shots were fired; that Cooper

extended a gun out of the front passenger window; that Cooper fired the gun; and

that victim Ricky Williams ran away from the car, clutching his chest, as the gun

was drawn back into the car. In light of this evidence, the Nevada Supreme

Court’s decision was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly

established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States. 

Nor was it based on an unreasonable determination of the facts. 

 The Nevada Supreme Court’s application of the reasonable possibility

standard amounts to a ruling that Cooper failed to satisfy the materiality standard

necessary to prevail on either a Brady or a Napue claim. The reasonable

possibility standard is equivalent to the materiality standard for Napue claims. See

United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 679–80 & n.9 (1985). And, because the
Page 3 of 3

materiality standard for Brady claims is more demanding than the reasonable

possibility standard, Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 291 (1999), failure to

satisfy the reasonable possibility standard necessarily forecloses relief under

Brady. 

AFFIRMED.