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 Rub A Dub Soap, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ending February 29, 2004 (the  "Report"),  I, Lisa
R. Powell,  President,  Secretary and Treasurer 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  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 Company's  financial  position and results of
          operations.


/s/ Lisa R. Powell
-------------------------
President, Secretary, and
Treasurer

April 12, 2004
----------------
Date
**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 Optigenex Inc. (the "Company") on Form
      10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Daniel Zwiren,
      the
      Chief Executive Officer and 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 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.




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




Date: November
              19, 2007
            By:
            /s/ DANIEL
              ZWIRENDaniel
                Zwiren
              Chief
                Executive Officer and Chief Financial
                Officer
Certification Accompanying Periodic Report

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(18 U.S.C. Section 1350)



The undersigned, Harry Chew, President/CEO and Director of Bi-Optic Ventures Inc. (the Company"), hereby certifies that the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-QSB for the period ended August 31, 2003 (the "Report")



(1) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and



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



Date:  Oct. 14, 2003   /s/ Harry Chew____________________________

Harry Chew, President/CEO and Director
EXHIBIT 31.1



                             CERTIFICATION
           PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, Qian Chao, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Ridgefield
Industries Corp.;

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 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 report;

4.   The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are 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 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 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 our 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 (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of
an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

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

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

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


Date:  July 26, 2004


/s/ Qian Chao
---------------------------------------
Qian Chao, Chief Executive Officer
(principal executive officer and principal
 accounting officer)
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 14-1846

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Michael D. McBride

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

 Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Missouri - Joplin

____________

 Submitted: September 3, 2014

Filed: September 23, 2014

[Unpublished]

____________

Before BYE, SMITH, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Michael McBride directly appeals after he pled guilty to a child-pornography

charge under a Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement
containing an appeal waiver, and the district court1

 sentenced him in accordance with

the plea agreement to the statutory minimum term of imprisonment. His counsel has

filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging McBride’s

sentence. In addition, counsel seeks leave to withdraw.

After careful de novo review, we enforce the appeal waiver. See United States

v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (court should enforce appeal

waiver and dismiss appeal where it falls within scope of waiver, plea agreement and

waiver were entered into knowingly and voluntarily, and no miscarriage of justice

would result); see also United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (de

novo review of validity and applicability of appeal waiver). First, we conclude that

counsel’s challenge to McBride’s statutory minimum sentence falls within the scope

of the appeal waiver. Second, based on McBride’s statements under oath at the plea

hearing, we are satisfied that he entered into both the plea agreement and the appeal

waiver knowingly and voluntarily. See Nguyen v. United States, 114 F.3d 699, 703

(8th Cir. 1997) (defendant’s statements made during plea hearing carry strong

presumption of verity). Third, we conclude that no miscarriage of justice would result

from enforcing the waiver. See Andis, 333 F.3d at 891-92 (miscarriage-of-justice

exception is narrow and generally applies only to claims of illegal sentences,

sentences based on constitutionally impermissible factors, and ineffective assistance

of counsel). Finally, having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson

v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues outside the scope of the

appeal waiver. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed, and we grant counsel leave to

withdraw, subject to counsel informing appellant about procedures for seeking

rehearing or filing a petition for certiorari. 

______________________________

1

The Honorable Beth Phillips, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

-2-
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of the Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. §1350, I, the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of Whitehall Limited, Inc. (the
Company), hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2005 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|              
|--------------
|/s/ Kay Carter
|Kay Carter    
|April 18, 2006

|
|
#### Harold Rivers and Lonnie Boatright, *Plaintiffs in Error,*v. The State of Florida, *Defendant in Error.*

Division B.

Decision Filed January 28, 1928.

*W. K. Zewadslci, Jr.,*and *Wm. C. Pierce,*for Plaintiffs in Error;

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

Per Curiam.

This cause -having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the judgment herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been séen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said judgment; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the said judgment of the Criminal Court of Record be,'and the same is hereby, affirmed.

Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
Margaret R. GILLIS, Plaintiff, v. Michael R. GILLIS, Defendant.

No. COA18-430

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: September 3, 2019

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 32.1



                           CERTIFICATION
        PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
             SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the quarterly report of Easton Technologies Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I, Jianjun Zhang, President 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, to my knowledge, 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.



Date: November 8, 2004

/s/ Jianjun Zhang
---------------------------------------------
Jianjun Zhang, President
(principal executive officer and principal
 accounting officer)
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Melissa N. WILLIAMS, Appellant.

WD 80379

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

ORDER FILED: AUGUST 28, 2018

Stephanie C. Luntsford, Moberly, MO, Counsel for Respondent.

Jedd Christian Schneider, Columbia, MO, Counsel for Appellant.

Before Division Four: Mark D. Pfeiffer, Presiding Judge, Gary D. Witt, Judge, Anthony Rex Gabbert, Judge

**ORDER**

Per Curiam:

*886Ms. Melissa N. Williams appeals her convictions after a bench trial in the Circuit Court of Randolph County, Missouri, for driving while intoxicated, resisting a lawful stop, leaving the scene of a motor vehicle accident, careless and imprudent driving, and driving in the wrong direction. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum of law has been provided to the parties. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).
Delta Air Lines, Inc., Dept #661, PO Box 20706, Atlanta, GA 30320

- 6001 Delta Air Lines, Inc. Network Planning September 8, 2011
Mr. Rob Hawks Attorney, Regulations Division Federal Aviation Administration

- Office of Chief Counsel 800 Independence Avenue, S. W. Wa shington, DC 20591 Dear Mr. Hawks, As we discussed during our phone conversation on August 31, Delta Air Lines (“Delta”) is in receipt of your letter dated August 11, 2011 granting in part our petition for a waiver at DCA due to the severe winter weather in the Northeast that critically disrupted Delta’s operations in January and February 2011. However, FAA did not grant a waiver for two 0600 DCA slots which failed to meet the 80

- percent usage requirement for this reporting period notwithstandin g our explanation that historically these low demand periods under the HDR have slots available for allocation to any carrier at any time. Due to this availability, Delta believed the usage of these slots was less critical, but recognizes this was in erro r given the HDR applies equally regardless of time of day. As we stated in our letter dated July 8, 2011, Delta has modified our monitoring practices in these time periods and will fully meet the utilization requirements throughout the entire slot control led time periods in future. Delta would like to request further consideration regarding the permanent recall of the two 0600 slots (Slot IDs 1218 and 1592) due to the very unique situation Delta has experienced the past two years. Delta and US Airways submitted a joint request for the Department of Transportation to waive the current prohibition to purchase LGA operating authorizations in order to allow us to consummate a transaction permanently transferring DCA slots in exchange for LGA operating auth orizations. This transaction has been anticipated for over two years causing increased complexities within our schedule planning processes. Depending on the outcome of this request, we tried to be prepared with a slot portfolio at both airports that would accommodate our plans. This process has been largely beyond our control, unusual and unpredictable. Currently, Delta is using these two 0600 slots and is meeting the utilization requirements. Permanently returning these slots would create undue hardshi p to Delta as we have future schedule plans that utilize these slots. W e respectfully ask for relief from this decision and will immediately return the slots but request an immediate permanent reallocation the same day. Please contact me at 612

- 578

- 4122 should you have any questions and thank you for your consideration. Sincerely,

Jennifer Sayre Delta Air Lines, Inc. Director

– International Schedules and Airport Access
#### MRS. M. B. APPLE v. DUKE POWER COMPANY.

(Filed 16 June, 1939.)

Appeal by plaintiff from *Hill, Special Judge,*at September Term, 1938, of Guileord.

Civil action to recover damages for an alleged negligent injury.

On 17 February, 1938, plaintiff was a passenger on defendant’s bus going from Jefferson Square in the city of Greensboro to the village of Pomona. The bus was constructed with a front-door entrance and a middle exit. As plaintiff started to alight upon reaching her destination, her feet slipped on the “slanting . . . slippery and dirty” floor of the bus causing the heels of her shoes to catch on the metal strip around the edge of the exit and to throw her to the bottom step.

Plaintiff testified that she saw the “dirty slick place, which looked worn,” before she was hurt, as she got up, when she was standing there. “It was dirty and looked slick, but I did not think it was slick enough to fall on.” Other passengers immediately preceded and followed the plaintiff without injury or mishap. The record discloses no other instance of a passenger experiencing similar difficulty on the bus.

There was evidence *pro*and *con*as to whether plaintiff really suffered any injury.

*800From judgment of nonsuit entered at the close of plaintiff’s evidence, she appeals, assigning error.

*George A. Tounce and Adam Younce for plaintiff, appellant.*

*W. S. O’B. Robinson, Jr., and R. M. Robinson for defendant, appellee.*

Per Curiam.

¥e agree with tbe trial court that while this may be a border-line case, the plaintiff has not successfully handled the laboring oar or fixed the defendant with liability. *Smith v. Bus Co.,*216 N. C., 22; *Powers v. Sternberg,*213 N. C., 41, 195 S. E., 88.

The legal requirements in such a case are too well established to require further elaboration here. *Smith v. Bus Co., supra.*

Upon the record, the judgment will be upheld.

Affirmed.
Bruce T. SHOCKLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

WD 80334

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Order filed: March 6, 2018

Natalie H. Hoge, for Appellant.

Karen L. Kramer, Jefferson City, for Respondent.

Before Division One: Thomas H. Newton, Presiding Judge, Victor C. Howard, Judge and Karen King Mitchell, Judge

***ORDER***

PER CURIAM:

Bruce Shockley appeals the denial of his motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 29.15. In his sole point on appeal, he claims the evidence showed that if his counsel had investigated and presented relevant evidence that there is a reasonable probability the outcome of his case would have been different. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum has been provided *53to the parties. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Kay Carter, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer (principal financial officer) of Whitehall Limited,
Inc. certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Whitehall Limited, Inc.;

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 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 report;

4. The registrants other certifying officers and I are 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 our 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 our 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 control over financial reporting; and

5. The
registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, 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 weaknesses 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 information; and

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

Date: April 18, 2006



/s/ Kay CarterKay Carter, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
#### E. L. LUDFORD v. S. M. COMBS et al.

(Filed 22 February, 1928.)

1. Appeal and Error — Review—Error Waived in Supreme Court — Rules of Court.

It is necessary that exceptions be mentioned in brief, with authorities and argument, or they will be deemed abandoned on appeal.

2. Interest — Time and Computation — Judgments.

When interest is recoverable' on amount of verdict, it will run from the date of the verdict, unless it can be legally determined before then. C. S., 2307.

Appeal by plaintiff and defendants from *Midyette, J.,*at November Term, 1927, of Tyrrell.

*Thompson & Wilson and W. L. Small for plaintiff.*

*Aydlett & Simpson for defendants.*

DEFENDANTS' APPEAL.

Pee Oueiam.

Exceptions in the record not set out in the appellants’ brief, or in support of which no reason or argument is stated or authority cited, will be taken as abandoned. Rule 28. The only exceptions relied on by the defendants are addressed to instructions given the jury, and in these instructions we find

No error.

Plaintiff's Appeal.

Per Curiam. The judgment is affirmed. The amount due could not be determined before verdict. C. S., 2307.

Affirmed.
Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published

and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_________________________

No. 95-50508

(Summary Calendar)

_________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

J.W. MYERS,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________________________________________

Appeal from United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

(EP-90-CR-82-6)

__________________________________________________

June 3, 1996

Before JOLLY, JONES and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

In his fourth appeal of the sentence he received after his conviction for conspiracy to possess

with intent to distribute methamphetamine, J.W. Myers argues for the first time that the district court

erred by presuming that his offe nse involved d-methamphetamine and computing his base offense

level accordingly. The o nly issue for consideration on an appeal following remand is whether the

court below reached its final decree in due pursuance of this court’s previous opinion and mandate.

Burroughs v. FFP Operating Partners, L.P.

, 70 F.3d 31, 33 (5th Cir. 1995); see also United States

v. Fiallo-Jacome

, 874 F.2d 1479 (11th Cir. 1989); United States v. Connell

, 6 F.3d 27, 30 (1st Cir.2

1993). A claim is deemed to be abandoned when it is not raised in the original appeal. E ason v.

Thaler , 73 F.3d 1322, 1329 (5th Cir. 1996).

On Myers’s third appeal, this court remanded for determination of whether the government

could present evidence from which it might be reasonably inferred that the methamphetamine

attributed to Myers had a sufficient percentage of purity so as to contain at least 100 grams of pure

methamphetamine. T he district court correctly found that the issue of whether l- or dmethamphetamine was involved was outside of the parameters of this co urt’s limited remand.

AFFIRMED