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

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                       AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




 In connection with the Quarterly Report of OSK Capital III Corp(the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB  for  the  period  ending June 30, 2003 (the  "Report"),
I,  Deborah A. Salerno, Chief  Executive  Officer  of  the  Company,  certify,
pursuant  to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as  adopted pursuant  to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1) The Report fully complies with the requirement 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 Company's financial position and results of operations.



/s/ Deborah A. Salerno
--------------------
Deborah A. Salerno
President, Director and
Chief Executive Officer
December 22, 2003





                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 OSK Capital III Corp(the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB  for  the  period  ending June 30, 2003 (the  "Report"),
I,  Frank L. Kramer, Chief  Financial  Officer  of  the  Company,  certify,
pursuant  to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as  adopted pursuant  to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1) The Report fully complies with the requirement 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 Company's financial position and results of operations.



/s/ Frank L. Kramer
-----------------------
Frank L. Kramer
Treasurer, Secretary, Director and
Chief Financial Officer
December 22, 2003
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION 

FRANKLIN DAVID HARRIS JR., et al., 

 Case No. 1:17-cv-540 

Plaintiffs, 

Barrett, J. 

v. Bowman, M.J. 

 

DANIEL COOLEY, et. al, 

 

Defendants. 

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

 Plaintiffs, who are experienced pro se litigants, filed suit against their next-door 

neighbors under the Fair Housing Act. When the neighbors failed to appear, Plaintiffs 

obtained an entry of default. However, when Plaintiffs later sought to collect monetary 

damages by moving for the entry of default judgment, their motion was denied. 

In a Report and Recommendation filed on April 11, 2019, the undersigned 

recommended denying Plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment on multiple grounds. The 

undersigned explained that upon closer review, it was apparent the Plaintiffs’ complaint, 

as amended, failed to state any claim as a matter of law and that this Court lacked 

jurisdiction over any of the alleged claims. On that basis, the undersigned 

recommended dismissal of the case. In the alternative, the undersigned recommended 

that the case be dismissed under the doctrine of abstention, due to the existence of 

related proceedings in state court. (Doc. 33). 

The presiding district judge agreed with the primary analysis of the Report and 

Recommendation and adopted its conclusion that the complaint should be dismissed for 
2 

failure to state any claim and for lack of federal jurisdiction. (Doc. 36). Plaintiffs have 

filed an appeal in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which remains pending. 

On December 5, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a motion in this Court seeking “correction or 

modification of the record” on appeal under Rule of Appellate Procedure 10(e)(2)(B). 

(Doc. 43). The referenced Rule allows the trial court to supplement the record on 

appeal only if a “material” item is “omitted from or misstated in the record by error or 

accident.” Id. The rule has no application here, where there was no mistake or omission 

by this Court. Plaintiffs’ motion seeks the addition of a copy of a related state court 

complaint. However, the referenced state court pleading was not included in the record 

considered by this Court. 

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 10(e) does not allow the addition of 

records that were not before this Court and is not intended “to enable the losing party to 

add new material to the record in order to collaterally attack the trial court’s judgment.” 

United States v. Elizalde-Adame, 262 F.3d 637, 641 (7th Cir. 2001). Therefore, the 

undersigned will deny this frivolous motion. This case was dismissed based upon the 

failure of the complaint to state any federal claim as a matter of law and a lack of federal 

jurisdiction. The state court complaint is irrelevant to that determination. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion to expand the record to 

include a state court pleading (Doc. 43) is DENIED. 

 

 s/ Stephanie K. Bowman 

 Stephanie K. Bowman 

 United States Magistrate Judge
111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4252 

AN ACT 

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study 

of water resources in the Rialto-Colton Basin in the 

State of California, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 4252 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Inland Empire Per3 chlorate Ground Water Plume Assessment Act of 2010’’. 

4 SEC. 2. RIALTO-COLTON BASIN, CALIFORNIA, WATER RE5 SOURCES STUDY. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 2 years after funds 

7 are made available to carry out this Act, the Secretary 

8 of the Interior, acting through the Director of the United 

9 States Geological Survey, shall complete a study of water 

10 resources in the Rialto-Colton Basin in the State of Cali11 fornia (in this section referred to as the ‘‘Basin’’), includ12 ing— 

13 (1) a survey of ground water resources in the 

14 Basin, including an analysis of— 

15 (A) the delineation, either horizontally or 

16 vertically, of the aquifers in the Basin, includ17 ing the quantity of water in the aquifers; 

18 (B) the availability of ground water re19 sources for human use; 

20 (C) the salinity of ground water resources; 

21 (D) the identification of a recent surge in 

22 perchlorate concentrations in ground water, 

23 whether significant sources are being flushed 

24 through the vadose zone, or if perchlorate is 

25 being remobilized; 
3 

•HR 4252 EH

1 (E) the identification of impacts and 

2 extents of all source areas that contribute to 

3 the regional plume to be fully characterized; 

4 (F) the potential of the ground water re5 sources to recharge; 

6 (G) the interaction between ground water 

7 and surface water; 

8 (H) the susceptibility of the aquifers to 

9 contamination, including identifying the extent 

10 of commingling of plume emanating within sur11 rounding areas in San Bernardino County, 

12 California; and 

13 (I) any other relevant criteria; and 

14 (2) a characterization of surface and bedrock 

15 geology of the Basin, including the effect of the geol16 ogy on ground water yield and quality. 

17 (b) COORDINATION.—The Secretary shall carry out 

18 the study in coordination with the State of California and 

19 any other entities that the Secretary determines to be ap20 propriate, including other Federal agencies and institu21 tions of higher education. 

22 (c) REPORT.—Upon completion of the study, the Sec23 retary shall submit to the Committee on Energy and Nat24 ural Resources of the Senate and the Committee on Nat-
4 

•HR 4252 EH

1 ural Resources of the House of Representatives a report 

2 that describes the results of the study. 

Passed the House of Representatives March 18, 

2010. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4252 

AN ACT 

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct 

purposes. Basin in the State of California, and for other a study of water resources in the Rialto-Colton
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4387 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4387

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 29, 2010

 Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 
                              Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the Federal building located at 100 North Palafox Street 
  in Pensacola, Florida, as the ``Winston E. Arnow Federal Building''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The Federal building located at 100 North Palafox Street in 
Pensacola, Florida, shall be known and designated as the ``Winston E. 
Arnow Federal Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the Federal building referred to in 
section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Winston E. Arnow 
Federal Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 28, 2010.

            Attest:

                                            LORRAINE C. MILLER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                       1,189,083
<SECURITIES>                                 8,479,618
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,423,909
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    748,698
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            14,161,414
<PP&E>                                       9,540,738
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,801,514
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              28,215,267
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,913,406
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         7,471
<OTHER-SE>                                  18,900,902
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                28,215,267
<SALES>                                      7,168,103
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            16,245,422
<CGS>                                        5,135,311
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               13,387,745
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             331,969
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,178,758
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          3,178,758
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,178,758
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.43
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.2

                  CERTIFICATION BY THE 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-QSB of Syndication, Inc. (the
"Company") for the period ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned,
Mrutyunjaya S. Chittavajhula., Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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.

      Dated: August 14, 2006


                                        /s/ Mrutyunjaya S. Chittavajhula.
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Mrutyunjaya S. Chittavajhula.
                                        Chief Financial Officer
----- Forwarded by Richard J Ambrose/AE/DuPont on 05/21/2010 09:33 AM -----

From

Miederhoff.Eric@epamail.epa.gov

Date

05/19/2010 01:27 PM

To

Richard J Ambrose/AE/DuPont@DuPont

cc

Costello.Kevin@epamail.epa.gov

Subject

Re: Fw: proposed meeting to discuss chlorsulfuron developmental and 

reproductive toxicity 

Rick,

I forwarded the two concerns from your toxicologist to HED and they

provided these responses:

Point 1, regarding our conclusions that the visceral malformations were

not an effect of treatment. Since malformations were observed in one

fetus per litter in 3 litters, and the specific malformations were

different in each fetus, we do not believe that they are treatment

related. The DER and other reviews in which this study was discussed

need to be updated to remove these effects from those considered adverse

and treatment-related at the LOAEL. The only developmental effect of

potential concern is the decreased fetal body weight, and our concern

for this effect is lessened because it occurs in the presence of

decreased maternal body weight.

Point 2, regarding our opinion of TRI's listing chlorsulfuron as a

reproductive toxicant. We defer to TRI whether the chemical should be

listed as a reproductive toxicant or not since they are clearly more

cognizant of their criteria for listing than is OPP. The following

reviews of reproductive toxicity are the most recent we have in our

database and may be useful to the registrant and TRI.

(See attached file: 46493201.DER.doc)(See attached file: D313366.doc)

Eric Miederhoff

Chemical Review Manager

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Pesticide Programs

Pesticide Re-evaluation Division (7508P)

(703) 347-8028

Fax (703) 308-7070
Case: 3:17-cv-00334-TMR Doc #: 14-7 Filed: 04/16/19 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 285
Case: 3:17-cv-00334-TMR Doc #: 14-7 Filed: 04/16/19 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 286
TradeOn Inc.: Exhibit 10.15 - Filed by newsfilecorp.com











Exhibit 10.15 


Undertaking the Guaranty Obligations Pre-maturity Covenants between the Parties


Dispute Resolution Validity Acknowledgments by the Guarantors 

Summary of Guaranty Contract 


Undertaking the Guaranty Obligations Pre-maturity Covenants between the Parties Dispute Resolution Validity Acknowledgments by the Guarantors Summary of Guaranty Contract (the “Contract”) entered into
by and between Changzhou Wujin Best Cable Co., Ltd., Wang Kai and Yao Qing (the “Guarantors”) and Jiangsu Wujin Rural Commercial Bank Company limited by Shares (the “Creditor”) on September 18,
2009


Main Contents:


Guaranty Contract Number: 321882009820002 The Guarantors undertakes to assume joint and several liabilities for Changzhou Wujin Kai Kai Lighting Electronics Co. Ltd. (the “Obligor”)’s indebtedness towards the Creditor under the Loan
Agreement (reference no. 32188620090015) from the date of effectiveness of the debt by the Obligor and till two years after the maturity of that loan agreement and the amount secured is RMB 3,200,000. 


Guaranty Responsibility: the guaranty under this Contract shall be guaranty with joint and several liabilities. The guarantors are obligated to pay off the debt in the event the obligor is unable to pay off the debt (including the creditor declares
the debt becomes mature in advance by the Creditor under the Loan Agreement or pursuant to law. 


Scope of Guaranty: the guaranty shall cover all of the loan principal, interest, penalty interest, breach of contract compensation, damages, undertaking fee and all the expense such as litigation cost, lawyer’s fee. 


Guaranty period: the guaranty period is from the effective date of the Contract to two years after the expiration of the performance period under the Loan Agreement.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6032

REGINALD EUGENE HAYDEN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

BARBARA F. TAYLOR,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge.

(CA-96-956-R)

Submitted: June 12, 1997 Decided: June 17, 1997

Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Reginald Eugene Hayden, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of

Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).

2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant, a federal inmate, appeals the district court's

order denying relief on his Bivens* complaint under 28 U.S.C.A.

§ 1915(A) (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and

the district court's opinion and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the

district court. Hayden v. Taylor, No. CA-96-956-R (W.D. Va. Nov.

25, 1996). 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.

DISMISSED
Case 1:00-cr-00090-SSB     Document 107      Filed 02/01/2008     Page 1 of 2

Case 1:00-cr-00090-SSB     Document 107      Filed 02/01/2008     Page 2 of 2
TradeOn Inc.: Exhibit 10.11 - Filed by newsfilecorp.com











Exhibit 10.11 


Undertaking the Guaranty Obligations Pre-maturity Covenants 


Undertaking the Guaranty Obligations Pre-maturity Covenants between the Parties Dispute Resolution Validity Acknowledgments by the Guarantors Summary of Guaranty Contract of (the “Contract”) entered
into by and between Changzhou Wujin Best Cable Co., Ltd., Wang Kai and Yao Qing (the “Guarantors”) and Jiangsu Wujin Rural Commercial Bank Company limited by Shares (the “Creditor”) on July 2,
2009 


 Main Contents:


Guaranty Contract Number: 3218862009820013 The Guarantors undertakes to assume joint and several liabilities for Changzhou Wujin Kai Kai Lighting Electronics Co. Ltd. (the “Obligor”)’s indebtedness towards the Creditor under the Loan
Agreement (reference no. 3218862009020013) from the date of effectiveness of the debt by the Obligor and till two years after the maturity of that loan agreement and the amount secured is RMB 2,000,000. 


Guaranty Responsibility: the guaranty under this Contract shall be guaranty with joint and several liabilities. The guarantors are obligated to pay off the debt in the event the obligor is unable to pay off the debt (including the creditor declares
the debt becomes mature in advance by the Creditor under the Loan Agreement or pursuant to law. 


Scope of Guaranty: the guaranty shall cover all of the loan principal, interest, penalty interest, breach of contract compensation, damages, undertaking fee and all the expense such as litigation cost, lawyer’s fee. 


Guaranty period: the guaranty period is from the effective date of the Contract to two years after the expiration of the performance period under the Loan Agreement.
#### People v Haley,

No. 88405.

Motions to add new grounds for appeal are also denied. Court of Appeals No. 110487.
Exhibit 32.1




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Sinoenergy Corporation (the
“Company”) for the quarter ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Bo Huang, the
Chief Executive Officer, and I, Shiao Ming Sheng, the Chief Financial Officer,
of the Company, do hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted
pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge
and belief 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.








February
      12, 2010/s/
      Bo
      HuangBo
      HuangChief
      Executive Officer/s/
      Shiao Ming
      ShengShiao
      Ming ShengChief
      Financial Officer







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.





The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 and is not being filed for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or
after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such
filing.
8129

#### OHIO POTTERY AND GLASS CO. v. TOLBERT.

1. Verdict — Defense.'—That there is no evidence to support a defense must be made by motion to direct a verdict.

2. Exceptions not considered in argument are deemed abandoned.

Before Watts, J., Greenwood, Spring term, 1911.

Affirmed.

Action by Ohio Pottery & Glass Company against B. C. Talbert. Plaintiff appeals.

*Messrs. Giles & Outs,*for appellants,

cite: 66 S. C. 61; 65 S. C. 510.

*Mr. D. H. Magill,*contra.

March 11, 1912.

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Fraser.

This was an action for goods sold and delivered to defendant by the plaintiff. The defendant acknowledged having received the goods but pleaded payment. The defendant claims that he paid for the goods and paid the agent from whom he bought. The plaintiff denied that the agent to sell had any authority to receive payment.

There was a verdict for the defendant. Plaintiff appealed. The following are the exceptions:

> 1. “We most respectfully submit that it was error of law in his Honor to refuse the motion for a new trial when the record shows there was not a *scintilla*of evidence going to establish the fact that Bayol was the agent for the plaintiffs for the purpose of collecting the account in dispute, but on the contrary, the positive testimony of the *565plaintiffs established the fact that Bayol was not the agent of the plaintiffs for that purpose..

> *2.*“It is most respectfully submitted that the jury disregarded the charge of his Honor and it was error of law to refuse the motion for a new trial.

> 3. “It is most respectfully submitted that the testimony of the defendant shows conclusively that Bayol was the agent of the defendant when he received the purchase price for the bill of goods and was not the agent of the plaintiffs and it was error of law for his Honor to refuse to set aside the said verdict of the jury and order a new trial.”

1 The question of no evidence is a question of law, but this Court has adopted and published the following rule, 75 S. C., p. 572: * * * “the point that there is no evidence to support a defense shall be first made by a motion to direct a verdict.”

No such motion was made and this exception cannot be considered.

*2***The second and third exceptions were not considered in the argument, and therefore, they are deemed abandoned.

The judgment of this Court is that the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Mr. Justice Watts, *disqualified.*