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

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In
connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report of Syniverse Holdings, Inc. and Syniverse Technologies, Inc. (the Companies) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2006 (the Report), I, Tony G. Holcombe, Chief
Executive Officer of the Companies, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

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

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



|                       |  |                                         
|---------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------
|Date: November 9, 2006 |  | /s/ Tony G. Holcombe                    
|                       |  | Tony G. Holcombe Chief Executive
Officer

The above certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document.
Jermaine PIERCE, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. ED 105701

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION ONE.

Filed: August 7, 2018

FOR APPELLANT: Stephen P. Ranz, Missouri Public Defender Office, 1010 Market St., Ste. 1100, St. Louis, MO 63101.

FOR RESPONDENT: Joshua D. Hawley, Attorney General, Dora A. Fichter, Asst. Atty. Gen., P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102.

Before Roy L. Richter, P.J., Robert M. Clayton III, J., and Angela T. Quigless, J.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Jermaine Pierce appeals the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. We find that the motion court's findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the motion court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).
# FILED

Au gust 22, 1997 Cecil Crowson, Jr . App ellate C ou rt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CRIMIN AL APPEALS OF TENN ESSEE

AT NASHVILLE JULY 1997 SE SSION

STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) NO. 01C01-9609- CC-00398 ) Appellee ) RUTHE RFOR D COU NTY ) V. ) HON. JAMESK. CLAYTON, JUDGE ) DOUGLAS MATTES ) (Post-Conv iction) ) Appellant ) )
FOR THE APPELLANT FOR THE APPELLEE Douglas M attes John Knox Walkup South Central Correction al Center Attorney Gen eral and Repor ter Apollo AA-207 450 James Roberts on Parkway P.O. Box 279 Nashvil le, Tennessee 37243- 0493 Clifton, Tennessee 38 425-5346 Georgia Bl ythe Felner Assistant Attorney Gener al 450 James Roberts on Parkway Nashvil le, Tennessee 37243- 0493 W illiam W hitesell Distric t Attorney General Third Floor Judicial Bui lding Murfreesboro, Tennessee 37130

OPINION FILE D:______

AFFIRMED -- RULE 20 ORDER2

W illiam M. B arker, Ju dge Order The Appellant, Doug las Mattes, appeals as of rig ht the Rutherford County Circuit C ourt’s dismi ssal of his peti tion for post-conviction relief. On February 21, 1995, the Appellant

pled guil ty to two counts of agg ravated sex ual battery . Pursuant to the plea agr

eement, he received a mitigated sentence of 7.2 ye ars wit h a 20% release eligibility. On April 24, 1996, the Board of Pa roles reviewed the Appellant’s parole elig ibility

and found that the Appell ant should remai n incarcerated because of the seriousnes s of the underly ing offense and because he was part icipatingin sex offender treatment. On Aug ust 14, 1996, the App ellant filed a pet ition req uesting post
conviction relief. On August 19, 1996, without an evidentiary hearing, the trial court entered an order

dismissingthe petition because it was time barred. The State argues that the statute of l imitation for the Appellant’s pet ition had expired w hen it was

filed. We agree. All post-conviction relief petiti ons filed after May 10, 1995, are g overned by the Post-Conviction Procedure Act of 19 95. Tenn. Code Ann . § 40-30-201, Compiler’s Notes (Supp. 199 6). Post-C onviction relief must be sou ght “w ithin one (1) year of the date of the final acti on of the highest state appellate court to w hich an appeal i s taken or, if no appeal is taken, within one year of which the judgment became fin al . . . .” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 30-202(a) (S upp. 1996). Here, the Appel lant filed his petition under the 1995 Act and the one-year statute of limitat ion applies. The Appellant’s j udgment became final o n or about March 21, 1995, but since the new Post-Conv iction Act be came effective on M ay 10, 1995, the limitat ions period di d not expire until May 10, 1996. The Appell ant’s petiti on was filed i n August, 1996, and is, therefore, barred by the statute of li mitations. The judgment of the tr ial court i s affirmed pursuant to Rule 20 of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals.3 __________________________ WILLIAM M. BARKER, JUDG E CONCUR:

__________________________ JOHN H. PE AY, JUDG E

__________________________ JERRY L. SMITH, JUDG E
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACTAPPEALS Appeal of

-- ) ) Advanced Global Resources, LLC ) ) Under ContractNo. W9llRQ-18-0-0001 ) APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT:

APPEARANCES FORTHE GOVERNMENT: ASBCA No. 61909

David Y. Yang, Esq.

Dickstein Shapiro LLP Washington, DC Raymond M. Saunders, Esq.

Army ChiefTrial Attorney MAJ Wayne T. Branom III, JA

Trial Attorney ORDER OF DISMISSAL The Board is in receipt ofa letterby Advanced Global Resources, LLC (AGR or appellant), datedJanuary 28, 2019, requesting that this appeal be dismissed without prejudice. Pending beforethe Board is the Army's motion to dismiss for lack ofsubject matterjurisdiction, arguing that AGRfailed to submit a claim to the contracting officer for final decision, and alternatively, that AGR failed to certify the claim. Appellant asserts in its letter that it has now submitted a certified claim to the Army, and wishes to reserve its right to appeal any final decision by the Army on its certified claim. On January 31, 2019, the government expressed it does not object to appellant's request. For good cause shown, this appeal is dismissed without prejudice. Dated: February 8, 2019

LIS B. YOUNG Administrative Judge Armed Services Board ofContractAppealsI certify that the foregoing is a true copy ofthe Order ofDismissal ofthe Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals in ASBCANo. 61909, Appeal ofAdvanced Global Resources, LLC, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. Dated:

2 JEFFREY D. GARDIN Recorder, Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals
CERTIFICATION  PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002







I, Harry Chew, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Bi-Optic Ventures, Inc. (the Company) do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



1.  This Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the period

ended August 31, 2005 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; and



2.  The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all

material respects, the financial condition and results of operations

of the Company.







Date:  October 06, 2005



/s/  Harry Chew

Harry Chew, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer









1
EXHIBIT 23(A)

               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


We have issued our report dated May 11, 2004, accompanying the financial
statements included in the Annual Report of Black Warrior Wireline Corp. on Form
10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003. We hereby consent to the
incorporation by reference of said report in the Registration Statements of
Black Warrior Wireline Corp. on Forms S-8 (File No. 333-57390, effective March
22, 2001, File No. 333-57392, effective March 22, 2001, and File No. 333-57396,
effective March 22, 2001).


GRANT THORNTON LLP


Houston, Texas
May 11, 2004
ASPAC COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
                          (A Development Stage Company)

                   NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

                               September 30, 2000

Exhibit 3.3

                       CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP AND MERGER
                                     MERGING
                           ASPAC COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
                                      INTO
                         USA INTERNATIONAL CHEMICAL ,INC


USA International Chemical, Inc. a corporation organized and existing under the
laws of Delaware.

DOES HEREBY CERTIFY:

FIRST: that this corporation was incorporated on the 22nd day of July, 1988,
pursuant to the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.

SECOND: That this corporation owns all of the outstanding shares of common stock
of the stock of ASPAC Communications, Inc. a corporation incorporated on the 1st
day of June, 1994, pursuant to the General Corporation Law of the State of
Delaware.

THIRD: That this corporation, by the following resolutions of its Board of
Directors, duly adopted by unanimous written consent of its members dated June
12, 2000, filed with the minutes of the Board, determined to merge into itself
said ASPAC Communications, Inc.

RESOLVED, that USA International Chemical, Inc., merge, and it hereby does merge
into itself ASPAC Communications, Inc. and ad\assumes all of its obligations;
and

FURTHER RESOLVED, that the merger shall be effective upon filing with the
Secretary of State of Delaware..

FURTHER RESOLVED, that the proper officer of this corporation be and he or she
is hereby directed to make and execute a Certificate of Ownership and Merger
setting forth a copy of the resolutions to merge said ASPAC Communications, Inc.
and assume its liabilities and obligations, and the date of adoption thereof,
and to cause the same to be filed with the Secretary of State and to do all acts
and things whatsoever, whether within or without the State of Delaware, which
may be in anywise necessary or proper to effect said merger;

And

FURTHER RESOLVED, that this corporation change its corporate name by changing
Article One of the Certificate of Incorporation of this corporation to read as
follows:

Article One: "The name of the corporation is ASPAC Communications, Inc."

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, said USA International Chemical, Inc., has caused
this Certificate to be signed by Marc Mayeres, its Chairman, this 12th day of
June, 2000.


                                                /S/ Marc Mayeres, Chairman
                                                --------------------------
                                                Marc Mayeres

                                       23
STATE of North Carolina v. Jose VAZQUEZ, Defendant.

No. COA18-1296

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: June 18, 2019

NO ERROR IN PART. REMANDED FOR CORRECTION OF CLERICAL ERROR.
CHIEF JUSTICE

 CAROLYN WRIGHT

JUSTICES

 DAVID L. BRIDGES

 MOLLY FRANCIS

 DOUGLAS S. LANG

 ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS

 ROBERT M. FILLMORE

 LANA MYERS

 DAVID EVANS

 DAVID LEWIS

 ADA BROWN

 CRAIG STODDART

 BILL WHITEHILL

 DAVID J. SCHENCK

LISA MATZ

CLERK OF THE COURT

(214) 712-3450

theclerk@5th.txcourts.gov

GAYLE HUMPA

BUSINESS ADMINISTRATOR

(214) 712-3434

gayle.humpa@5th.txcourts.gov

FACSIMILE

(214) 745-1083

INTERNET

WWW.TXCOURTS.GOV/5THCOA.ASPX

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

600 COMMERCE STREET, SUITE 200

DALLAS, TEXAS 75202

(214) 712-3400

June 2, 2015

Senrick Shern Wilkerson

#1885146

Ramsey I Unit

1100 F.M. 655 7 E-2-17T

Rosharon, TX, 77583

RE: Court of Appeals Number: 05-15-00617-CV

Trial Court Case Number: DC-15-01662

Style: Senrick Wilkerson

v. 

Dallas Police Department

Dear Mr. Wilkerson:

We have received your letter dated May 25, 2015 in which you included documents that 

you requested this Court transmit to the district clerk. We have forwarded those documents to 

the district clerk as requested. Please be advised that in the future we will not be able to assist 

you with the transmission of documents to the district clerk. In the future, you must make other 

arrangements for the transmittal of any documents that you wish to file in the district court.

Respectfully,

/s/ Lisa Matz, Clerk of the Court

LM/bm
No. 09-9949.

#### Jermaine Bell, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 1114, 130 S. Ct. 2423,

176 L. Ed. 2d 937,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3715.

May 3, 2010.

Petition for writ of certio-rari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 359 Fed. Appx. 442.
**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         **

     The undersigned, Hailan Xu, the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of Sentaida Tire Company Limited (the “Company”), DO HEREBY CERTIFY that:

     1.     The Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March31, 2009(the “Report”),        fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     2.     Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned has executed this statement this14th day of May 2009.

 

|  |  /s/ Hailan Xu           |
|--|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  | Hailan Xu                                                                       |
|  | Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer                                           |
|  | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)                                    |

 

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

The forgoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to §18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It 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.
EXHIBIT
      31




CERTIFICATION





I,
      Hideyuki Shiraishi, certify that:





1.
      I have
      reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Amanasu Technologies
      Corporation;





2.
      Based
      on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
      fact necessary to make the 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 of the registrant as of, and
      for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;





4.
      I am
      responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures
      (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant
      and we have:





a)
      Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
      controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that
      material information relating to the registrant, 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 registrant's disclosure controls and
      procedures and presented in this report my conclusions 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 registrant's internal control over
      financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal
      quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
      affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
      and





5.
      I have
      disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and
      the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing
      the equivalent function):








a)
      All
      significant deficiencies and material weakness in the design or operation of
      internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
      adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and
      report financial data; and


b)
      Any
      fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
      who
      have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls over financial
      reporting.








Date:
      November 14, 2006





/s/
      Hideyuki Shiraishi


Hideyuki
      Shiraishi


CEO,
      CFO,
      CAO
Form of Waiver, Executive Change of Control Severance Program



 Exhibit 10.15 
 Waiver of Certain Benefit Entitlements Under the 
 Prudential Financial, Inc. Executive Change of Control Severance Program 
 I participate in the Prudential
Financial, Inc. Executive Change of Control Severance Program (the “Program”). In the event that I become entitled to severance benefits under the Program following the occurrence of a Change of Control, they will be calculated based on a
multiple of my “Annual Compensation.” Under the Program, Annual Compensation is generally defined as 
 the sum of
(i) a Participant’s annual Base Pay, and (ii) the average of the annual incentive compensation payments to the Participant for the three most recent calendar years (or, if less, the number of calendar years during which
the Participant was employed by the Company or any Subsidiary) prior to the Participant’s Year of Termination. 
 I agree
and acknowledge that a portion of my annual incentive compensation payment in respect of 2009 will include an amount in recognition of the gain realized by Prudential Financial, Inc. (the “Company”) in connection with the sale of its
interests in the joint venture formed with Wachovia Securities (the “Wachovia Component”). The Company will identify to me the amount of the Wachovia Component. I also understand that the Wachovia Component of my annual incentive
compensation payment relates to a one-time, nonrecurring event. I further understand that the Board of Directors and Compensation Committee intend that the Wachovia Component not be taken into account in determining other benefits, including any
severance benefits that may become payable under the Program. The Company intends to amend the applicable executive and employee benefit plans to effect such exclusion. 
 Under the Program, no amendment that adversely affects participants will be “given any effect until the expiration of one year from the date that Participants are given written notice” of such
amendment or termination. Thus, without my consent and waiver, the amendment to exclude the Wachovia Component from the determination of Annual Compensation under the Program would not be effective until one year after the requisite notice is given.

 I hereby agree that, notwithstanding the terms of the Program (including the provisions thereof related to the time at which
amendments become effective), in the event that I should become entitled to receive severance benefits under the Program, the Wachovia Component will be excluded from the definition of “Annual Compensation” and I will not receive any
severance benefits based upon the Wachovia Component. 
  

									
		 		 		 	Signed:
				
		 		 		 	  

					
	Dated:	 	  
	 		 	Print Name:
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 38870

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

CORY R. HOLTAN,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 344

Filed: February 1, 2012

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED 

OPINION AND SHALL NOT 

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada

County. Hon. Darla S. Williamson, District Judge. 

Order denying Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for reduction of 

sentence, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Diane M. Walker, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Cory R. Holtan pled guilty to failure to register as a sex offender. Idaho Code § 18-8309. 

The district court sentenced Holtan to a unified term of ten years, with one year determinate. 

Holtan filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court denied. Holtan appeals.

A motion for reduction of sentence under Idaho Criminal Rule 35 is essentially a plea for 

leniency, addressed to the sound discretion of the court. State v. Knighton, 143 Idaho 318, 319, 

144 P.3d 23, 24 (2006); State v. Allbee, 115 Idaho 845, 846, 771 P.2d 66, 67 (Ct. App. 1989). In 

presenting a Rule 35 motion, the defendant must show that the sentence is excessive in light of 

new or additional information subsequently provided to the district court in support of the 

motion. State v. Huffman, 144 Idaho 201, 203, 159 P.3d 838, 840 (2007). Upon review of the 
2

record, including the new information submitted with Holtan’s Rule 35 motion, we conclude no 

abuse of discretion has been shown. Therefore, the district court’s order denying Holtan’s Rule 

35 motion is affirmed.
#### George Burns, *Plaintiff in Error,*v. State of Florida, *Defendant in Error.*

En Banc.

Decision Filed January 26, 1928.

*85Price, Price, *Neeley*c& *Kehoe,*for Plaintiff in Error;

*Fred H. Davis,*Attorney General, and *H. F. Carter,*Assistant, for the State.

Per Curiam.

The information upon which the plaintiff in error in this case was convicted, ran in the name of, and was signed, filed and sworn to by an assistant county solicitor, and the judgment of the court below must therefore be reversed upon the authority of Segars v. State, decided at the June Term, 1927, and Sawyer v. State, 113 So. 736.

Reversed.

Ellis, C. J., and Whitfield and Terrell, J., concur.

Brown, J., dissenting.

Strum, J., absent because of illness.