alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT
      32**


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


**(Subsections
      (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States
      Code)**





Pursuant
      to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
      section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the
      undersigned officers of Asia Global Holdings Corporation, a Nevada corporation
      (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge,
      that:





The
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2006
      (the
      "Form 10-QSB") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section
      13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained
      in the Form 10-QSB 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
      Asia Global Holdings Corporation and will be retained by Asia Global Holdings
      Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
      staff
      upon request.




Dated:
      August 10, 2006







/s/
      Michael Mak


Michael
      Mak


President
      and


Chief
      Executive Officer







/s/
      Michael
      Mak


Michael
      Mak


Chief
      Financial Officer
#### ADERHOLD v. UNITED STATES.

No. 10231.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Jan. 20, 1943.

*859Dillon Hartridge and M. H. Myerson, both of Jacksonville, Fla., for appellant.

Herbert S. Phillips, U. S. Atty., of Tampa, Fla., and Damon G. Yerkes, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Jacksonville, Fla., for appellee.

Before SIBLEY, HUTCHESON, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.

HOLMES, Circuit Judge.

Upon evidence procured by a search of his premises, appellant was convicted of violating the internal revenue laws relating to intoxicating liquor. His sole contention on appeal is that his motion to quash the search warrant, and to suppress the evidence obtained thereby, should have been sustained because the warrant was not issued upon probable cause.

The warrant was issued by the Commissioner upon the affidavit of C. D. Norman, in which the probable cause of affiant’s belief was stated to be the affidavit of Henry Baxter that, at a stated time at the premises of appellant, he saw seven '5-gallon jugs of nontax paid whiskey unloaded from a truck into a small building on the premises; that he saw appellant assist in the unloading; and that he heard appellant say to his companion, “Well, there are seven jugs and I owe you $35.” Appellant contends the court knows judicially that moonshine whiskey is ordinarily indistinguishable in appearance from water or any other clear, colorless liquid; and that, by reason thereof, perception by sight alone was not sufficiently definitive of the contents of the jugs to afford reasonable grounds for believing the liquid to be whiskey.

In determining what is probable cause, the question is whether the affiant, at the time of his affidavit, had reason to believe, and did believe, from facts within his knowledge, that the law was being violated on the premises to be searched. If the facts set out in the affidavit are such that an ordinarily prudent person would be led to believe that there was a commission of the offense charged, the warrant should be issued.1 The sworn statement of Baxter that appellant had concealed in his possession jugs containing whiskey upon which no tax had been paid, supported by the statement of the price paid therefor, was sufficient to lead an ordinarily prudent person to believe appellant was feloniously concealing intoxicating liquor with intent to defraud the United States of the tax imposed thereon.2

The judgment appealed from is affirmed.

1

 Stacey v. Emery, 97 U.S. 642, 24 L.Ed. 1035; Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L.Ed. 543, 39 A.L.R. 790; Dumbra v. United States, 268 U.S. 435, 45 S.Ct. 246, 69 L.Ed. 1032.

2

 Steele v. United States, 267 U.S. 498, 45 S.Ct. 414, 69 L.Ed. 757. Cf. Lambert v. United States, 9 Cir., 282 F. 413; Garske v. United States, 8 Cir., 1 F.2d 620.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. PD-0572-14 & PD-0573-14

PATRICIA DONALDSON, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

ORDER TO DETERMINE REPRESENTATION

DALLAS COUNTY

This order was delivered per curiam.

O R D E R

Appellant was convicted of false statement to obtain property or credit in cause

numbers F-1000433-S and F-1000435-S in the 282 District Court of Dallas County.

nd

Appellant was sentenced to confinement for five years. The court of appeals affirmed the

judgments of the trial court Donaldson v. State, No. 05-13-00598-CR, 05-13-00599-CR

(Tex. App. — Dallas, delivered June 4, 2014). Appellant filed a pro se petition for

discretionary review which was granted by this Court on February 4, 2015. On February 10,
DONALDSON -2

2105, pursuant to an order from this Court, the trial court appointed the Dallas County Public

Defenders Office to represent Appellant on her petition for discretionary review. However,

on March 16, 2015, we granted the Dallas County Public Defenders Office motion to

withdraw as appointed counsel. Since Appellant is entitled to representation before this

Court at this time, we order the trial court to appoint an attorney to represent Appellant

before this court in regard to PDR Nos. PD-0572-14 and PD-0573-14 in accord with the

provisions of Articles 1.051 and 26.04, V.A.C.C.P. Any hearing conducted pursuant to this

order shall be held within 15 days of the date of this order. The trial court's order appointing

counsel and any other supplementation of the record shall be returned to this court within 30

days of the date of this order.

It is so ordered this the 18 day of March, 2015

th

Do not publish
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jose Castiore, Appellant.

[718 NYS2d 833]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Edward Davidowitz, J.), rendered January 7, 1999, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis upon which to disturb the jury’s determinations concerning identification and credibility.

Defendant’s argument that the *Allen*charge *(Allen v United States,*164 US 492) was coercive is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the charge, read as a whole, adequately conveyed the proper principles, was sufficiently balanced, and did not impart to the jury that it was obligated to come to a verdict. Concur — Tom, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Lerner and Buckley, JJ.
Exhibit 12.1(b)

I, Jong Kyoo Yoon, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form
20-F of KB Financial Group 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 company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The companys other certifying officer 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)) and
internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) 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 the company, 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) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be
designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the company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

(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the companys internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report 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 the audit committee of the companys board of directors (or
persons performing the equivalent functions):

(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 company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 companys
internal control over financial reporting.

Date: June 20, 2011



/s/ Jong Kyoo YoonJong Kyoo YoonDeputy President and Chief Financial
Officer
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 Annual Report of Trade On, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-K for the period ended October 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, as the
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies 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 result of operations of
          the Company.

Dated: December 18, 2009
                                             /s/ Amit Sachs
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             Amit Sachs
                                             Principal Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 10 (s)

Broadcast Agreement with ATEL TV



[KARMA MEDIA: Business with a ConscienceTM]



Contrato de Radiodifusión



Entre POR ATEL TV (en adelante denominado "el Emisor"), domiciliado en Venezuela por una parte, y por la otra Karma Media Inc., con oficinas corporativas localizadas en 927 S. Azusa Ave. Suite C, City of Industry, California 91748 convienen en celebrar el presente CONTRATO DE RADIODIFUSION.



Términos del Contrato



El Emisor acepta poner al aire el programa de televisión llamado Estelle's Paradise, de 30 minutos, distribuido por Karma Media Inc.  La emision comenzará antes de la semana Julio de 2004 por un mínimo de 26 semanas consecutivas.  Cualquiera de las partes puede concluir este acuerdo por cualquier razón con un aviso previo de 60 días.  Este acuerdo es renovable automáticamente a menos que cualquiera de las partes desea cambiar todas o una parte de los términos contenidos en este acuerdo.  El Emisor acepta poner al aire Estelle's Paradise al menos una vez a la semana entire las horas 6AM y 12 de la noche.  Siempre que estos requerimientos mínimos sean cumplidos, el emisor tendrá el permiso de Karma Media Inc. para poner al aire cada episodio.  El emisor proveerá a Karma Media Inc. las grillas do programas de manera anticipada a las fechas de a emisión.



El Emisor y Karma Media Inc. podrán dividir el tiempo comercial en mitades iguales, durante cada puesta al aire de Estelle's Paradise.  El tiempo se divide de la siguiente manera: 4 minutos para el Emisor y 4 minutos para Karma Media.



Karma Media entregará episodios de Estelle's Paradise en formato MiniDV puntualmente para que el Emisor tenga tiempo suficiente para repasar cada episodio en forma previa a la emisión.  En caso de que el Emisor considere up episodio inutilizable, Karma Media hará todos los esfuerzos correspondientes para reemplazarlo o el Emisor podra reemplazarlo con un episodio emitido anteriormente.



El Emisor acepta introducir comerciales por direccion de Karma Media y acepta además proveer a Karma Media declaraciones juradas o un registro de transacciones para confirmar que las emisiones fueron puestas al aire apropriamente.



El Emisor admite que está estrictamente prohibida la reventa, dar la licencia o canjear Estelles Paradise a algun otro Emisor o a otra persona no mencionada en este contrato.



En prueba de absoluta conformidad, a continuacion firman ambas partes los términos y condiciones de este acuerdo y reconocen que estan autorizados a ejecutarlo.



|/s/         |  | Fecha: | 06/02/2004
|----------- |  | ------ | ----------
|Emisor      |  |        |           
|            |  |        |           
|/s/         |  | Fecha: | 06/04/2004
|Karma Media |  |        |           



9660 Flair Drive, Suite 328 El Monte, CA 91731·Tel. 310-397-1200·Fax 310-398-2211



---
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 373 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 373

Expressing support for the designation of May 9 as ``Home Front Heroes 
                                 Day''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 9, 2023

    Mr. Allred (for himself and Mr. Mooney) submitted the following 
   resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and 
                             Accountability

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Expressing support for the designation of May 9 as ``Home Front Heroes 
                                 Day''.

Whereas there is not a day for acknowledging everyone on the home front, men and 
        women, young and old, for their support, work, and sacrifices at home 
        during the service of their family members, loved ones, and fellow 
        countrymen and countrywomen in the military;
Whereas Home Front Heroes Day is organized and spearheaded by John Hampton 
        ``Lucky'' Luckadoo, who served in the United States Army Air Corps and 
        flew 25 missions over Germany as a B-17 bomber pilot in World War II, to 
        honor civilian Americans for their vital roles in supporting the 
        military in years past and present;
Whereas Home Front Heroes Day will recognize and celebrate those individuals who 
        serve selflessly at home to ensure the United States military can focus 
        on preserving democracy and freedom at home and around the world in a 
        time of war and peace;
Whereas Home Front Heroes Day is a valuable complement to the existing holidays 
        and special days that honor our veterans and military members; and
Whereas it is hoped that Home Front Heroes Day will inspire a sense of unity 
        around a common cause: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) expresses support for the designation of ``Home Front 
        Heroes Day'' in the United States; and
            (2) recognizes the efforts and sacrifice made by civilians 
        in contribution to wartime efforts.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 1 (Tuesday, January 2, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 108]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-28281]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER18-536-000]


O.H. Hutchings CT, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of 
O.H. Hutchings CT, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, 
with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes 
a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future 
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, 
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone 
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that 
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability, is January 15, 2018.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet 
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in 
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in 
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the 
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an 
eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive 
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). 
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b3f5f6e1f0fcdddfdaddd6e0c6c3c3dcc1c7f3d5d6c1d09dd4dcc5"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b0f6f5e2f3ffdedcd9ded5e3c5c0c0dfc2c4f0d6d5c2d39ed7dfc6">[email protected]</span></a>. or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: December 26, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-28281 Filed 12-29-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002   I, Kyle Beddome, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:  (1) The Annual Report on Form 10-K of Dafoe Corp. (the Company) for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2009 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of § 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 as of and for the periods covered in the Report.  Date:    November 12, 2009   /s/ Kyle Beddome Kyle Beddome, Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Accounting Officer)
#### Mrs. Roy G. Harding, *who sues on behalf of*Hollie Paxton *v.*State Compensation Commissioner *et al.*

(No. 7908)

Submitted April 10, 1934.

Decided April 17, 1934.

*818*England <& Ritchie,*for appellant.

*Homer A. Holt,*Attorney General, and *Kenneth E. Hines,*Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

Hatcher, Judge:

This ease presents the sole question, shall benefits under the Workmen’s Compensation Law be paid to a child of a deceased workman, when the child, though dependent on the father under general law, was not in fact supported by him at the time of his death.

Lawrence Paxton was killed in 1932 while at work for a subscriber to the workmen’s compensation fund. He left a son, Hollie, then teii years old. Benefits for Hollie under the compensation statutes were refused by the compensation commissioner.

In 1924, Hollie’s mother placed him with a stranger, Mrs. Roy Harding, and promised to pay her $8.00 weekly for his maintenance and support. He has remained with Mrs. Harding ever since. Mrs. Paxton made payments to Mrs. Harding for “a short time” after she took the child, and then failed to pay anything until the fall of 1933. Mrs. Harding never had any dealings whatever directly with Mr. Pax-ton. Her sister heard him promise Mrs. Paxton to help care for Hollie if he were placed in a private family. Whether Paxton kept that promise in any particular does not appear. *819The Paxtons lived apart a number of years before his death, and were seemingly separated at the time Hollie was placed with Mrs. Harding.

Counsel for the claimant contends that a child the age of Hollie is conclusively presumed to be dependent on his father. This contention is not applicable in this case because dependency under the compensation law is not to be determined by the ordinary legal or ethical conceptions of the duties of fatherhood. The Compensation Act itself prescribes a rule for determining dependency and that rule — arbitrary though it may be — must be the test. “Dependent as used in this chapter,” says Code 1931, 23-4-10(g) (the Compensation Law), “shall mean a * * * child under sixteen years of age * * * who at the time of injury causing death, is dependent in whole or part for his or her support upon the earnings of the employee.” This statute has been expressly construed as denoting dependency in fact and not under general law. “The question of dependency * * ***under Workmen’s Compensation Laws, is one of fact * * * to be determined by the evidence in each particular case.” *Poccardi*v. *Commissioner,*79 W. Va. 684, 91 S. E. 663. Accord: Annotation L. R. A. 1918F, 487-8; 28 R. C. L. 772-3. HoRie’s claim therefore fails as he was not receiving any support from the earnings of his father at the date of the latter’s death.

The ruling of the commissioner is affirmed.

*Affirmed.*