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

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Hydrogen Power, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, David J. Cade, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Accounting Officerof the Company, hereby certify, to my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (1350, as adopted pursuant to (906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

 

| Date: November 19, 2007 | /s/   David J. Cade |
|-------------------------|-------------------------------|

|   | David J. Cade |
|--------|---------------|

|   | Chief Executive Officer and Principal Accounting Officer |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

29

----
**Exhibit 32.2****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**In connection with the annual report on Form 10-K of Crum & Forster Holdings Corp. (the “Company”)for the year ended December 31, 2006 (the “Report”) as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof, I, Mary Jane Robertson, Executive Vice President, Chief FinancialOfficer and Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as enactedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 1. This Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and  2. The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.        Dated:  March 7, 2007 By:  /s/  *Mary Jane Robertson*    Mary Jane Robertson    Executive Vice President,Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer   A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to theCompany and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission, or its staff, upon request.
119
Exhibit 13.2


PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In connection with this Annual Report of Torm A/S (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on or about the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Roland M. Andersen, 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 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.





Date: April 30, 2012











/s/ Roland M. Andersen


Roland M. Andersen


Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)
#### Alfred Dias, Respondent, v Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., Appellant.

Order Supreme Court, New York County (Stanley S. Ostrau, J.), entered September *45418, 1984 which directed respondent-appellant to comply with a subpoena requiring the production of certain documents and which punished respondent-appellant with contempt for its prior failure to comply with said subpoena, unanimously modified, on the law, to strike the finding of contempt, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Complainant, a former employee of respondent Consolidated Edison, instituted a proceeding before the New York State Division of Human Rights, alleging that his employment was terminated in violation of Executive Law § 298. The Division of Human Rights found probable cause to believe that Dias had been discriminated against on the basis of age, disability, and national origin, and scheduled a formal hearing for January 11, 1984.

Prior to the hearing, Dias served a subpoena duces tecum on Consolidated Edison requiring the production of various documents, *inter alia,*the personnel records of certain Con Ed employees. Con Ed refused to comply with the subpoena and instead Dias was forced to make this motion in Supreme Court seeking to compel compliance.

We find that the records subpoenaed herein are relevant to the discrimination claims so as to demonstrate the pattern and practice of decision making. As such, the subpoena must be upheld. *(Russo v Reader's Digest,*91 Misc 2d 1; *see, Matter of La Belle Creole Intl. v Attorney-General of State of N. Y.,*10 NY2d 192.) Con Ed’s concerns regarding the rights of confidentiality of these employees is provided for by Justice Ostrau’s order, which directs prior submission to the Administrative Law Judge to inspect the records consistent with the requirements of confidentiality and to determine admissibility and exclusion of evidence. (Executive Law § 297; *see also, Russo v Reader's Digest, supra.)*

This subpoena, issued in connection with an administrative hearing, is nonjudicial. *(See,*CPLR 2302 [a].) Upon a party’s failure to comply with a nonjudicial subpoena, CPLR 2308 (b) permits that a motion be made in Supreme Court to compel compliance. As the Practice Commentary succinctly states, in regard to a nonjudicial subpoena "[i]t seems clear enough that no contempt punishment can be sought until compliance has been judicially ordered but not forthcoming.” (Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C2308:6, p 251; *see also,*2A Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac |f 2308.01b.) Accordingly, that portion of the order which punishes Con Ed for contempt must be stricken. Concur— Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Ross, Asch and Ellerin, JJ.
NO. 03-13-00080-CV

I N THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN

____________________________________________
APPELLANTS CENTRAL AUSTIN APARTMENTS, LLC, UP-32ND STREET, LLC, UP-32ND STREET HOSPITALITY, LLC // CROSS-APPELLANTS EAST AVENUE PROPERTY OWNERS’ ASSOCIATION, INC., UP AUSTIN HOLDINGS, LP and UP AUSTIN LAND HOLDINGS, LP

v.

APPELLEES EAST AVENUE PROPERTY OWNERS’ ASSOCIATION, INC., UP AUSTIN HOLDINGS, LP and UP AUSTIN LAND HOLDINGS, LP // CROSS-APPELLEES CENTRAL AUSTIN APARTMENTS, LLC, UP-32ND STREET, LLC, UP-32ND STREET HOSPITALITY, LLC

______________________________________________
NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS

______________________________________________

TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS:

COMES NOW Cross-Appellant East Avenue Property Owners’ Association,

Inc. and files this Notice of Change of Address.

Please take notice of the following change of address of Jane Webre and

Sara Clark, counsel of record in this matter, effective February 23, 2015:

Jane Webre State Bar No. 21050060 jwebre@scottdoug.com Sara W. Clark S tate Bar No. 00794847 sclark@scottdoug.com ACCEPTED 03-13-00080-CV 4341661 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS 3/2/2015 6:33:26 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK2

1189240 Scott Douglass & McConnico LLP

303 Colorado Street, Suite 2400 Austin, Texas 78701 Telephone: 512/495-6300 Telecopier: 512/495-6399

This move will not affect the email addresses or t elephone numbers of the

attorneys at Scott Douglass & McConnico LLP.

Respectfully submitted,

SCOTT, DOUGLAS & MCCONNICO LLP

By: /s/ Jane Webre

_________ Jane Webre State Bar No. 21050060 Sara W. Clark State Bar No. 00794847 303 Colorado Street, Suite 2400 Austin, Texas 78701 Telephone: 512/495-6300 Telecopier: 512/495-6399 jwebre@scottdoug.com sclark@scottdoug.com

ATTORNEYS FOR EAST AVENUE PROPERTY OWNERS’ ASSOCIATION, INC.3

1189240 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that I served the foregoing pleading on the following counsel of record through the electronic filing system and e-m ail on March 2, 2015:
Thomas S. Leatherbury Vinson & Elkins, LLP 2001 Ross Ave., Suite 3700 Dallas, TX 75201

Jonathan Wilkerson Vinson & Elkins, LLP The Terrance 7 2801 Via Fortuna, Suite 100 Austin, TX 78746

Eric J. Taube Neal Meinzer Amanda Taylor HOHMANN, TAUBE & SUMMERS, L.L.P. 100 Congress Ave., 18th Floor Austin, Texas 78701

/s/ Jane Webre____________ Jane Webre
1 In The



### Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

_________________

NO. 09

- 11

- 00617

- CR



### _________________

WILLIE EARL STEWART , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 75th District Court

Liberty County, Texas

Trial Cause No. CR28533

________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Following a jury trial, appellant, Willie Earl Stewart, was convicted of murder.

See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 19.02(b) (West 2011). Stewart was sentenced by the jury to

confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for life. The jury assessed a

fine in the amount of $10,000. This appeal followed.

Stewart’s appellate counsel filed a brief that presents counsel’s professional

evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California

,

386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967); High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 8072

(Tex. Crim. App. 1978). On September 6, 2012, we granted an extension of time for

appellant to file a pro se brief. We received no response from Stewart.

We have revie wed the appellate record, and we agree with counsel’s conclusion

that no arguable issues support an appeal. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order

appointment of new counsel to re

- brief the appeal. Compare Stafford v. State , 813

S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. C rim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s judgment. 1

AFFIRMED.

___________________________ CHARLES KREGER

Justice

Submitted on December 28 , 2012

Opinion Delivered January 23, 2013

Do not publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton , JJ.

1 Appellant may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for

discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
#### BOSKOWITZ v. ULMANN et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

November 15, 1907.)

Appeal from Special Term.

Action by Jesse L. Boskowitz, administrator of Ignatz Boskowitz, ■deceased, against Albert Ulmann and another. From an order denying a motion, the codefendant, Joseph Sulzbacher, surviving partner of J. H. Sulzbacher & Co., appeals. Reversed, and motion granted.

Argued before PATTERSON, P. J., and INGRAHAM, LAUGH-LIN, CLARKE, and HOUGHTON, JJ.

Charles L. Craig, for appellant.

Harold Nathan (John R. Dos Passos, on the brief), for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the defendant Joseph H. Sulzbacher from an order denying his motion, separately made, to va-cate an order for the examination of his codefendant Ulmann, to enable plaintiff to frame a complaint against both of them. The record is otherwise in all material respects the same as that presented on the •appeal by the defendant Ulmann, argued and decided herewith. 106 N. Y. Supp. 870. Upon the authority of the decision made on that appeal, the order should be reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with $10 costs.
---

EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Kenneth Hicks, President of Argentex Mining Corporation,
hereby 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 Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A of Argentex Mining
      Corporation for the year ended January 31, 2007 (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 Argentex Mining Corporation.                                                                 

|Dated: April 8, 2008 |                              
|-------------------- | -----------------------------
|                     |                              
|                     |                              
|                     | /s/
      Kenneth Hicks      
|                     | Kenneth Hicks                
|                     | President                    
|                     | (Principal Executive Officer)
|                     | Argentex Mining Corporation  

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Argentex Mining
Corporation and will be retained by Argentex Mining Corporation and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
#### FLEMING v. CITY OF NEW YORK.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

April 12, 1912.)

Action by Bridget J. Fleming against the city of New York. No opinion. Motion to dismiss appeal granted, unless appellant comply with terms stated in order. Order filed.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-60724

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

SHEKEILA JONES,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:13-CR-8-5

Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and DAVIS and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Shekeila Jones pleaded guilty of conspiring to defraud the United States 

in connection with a scheme to create and file false and fraudulent income tax 

returns to induce payment of tax refunds by the Department of the Treasury. 

Jones was sentenced to a 15-month term of imprisonment and to a three-year 

period of supervised release, and she was ordered to make restitution to the 

Internal Revenue Service in the amount of $55,660.

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 22, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-60724 Document: 00513125526 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/22/2015
No. 14-60724

2

Jones asserts that the district court erred in overruling her objection to 

the probation officer’s calculation of the amount of the loss in determining the 

guidelines sentence and restitution amount. She contends that the loss 

amount should not have included $36,600 related to five checks she cashed on 

behalf of her coconspirators because she has consistently denied that she knew 

that those funds had an illicit source.

The Government was required to prove the loss amount by 

a preponderance of the evidence, and the presentence report generally has 

sufficient indicia of reliability to permit the sentencing court to rely on it as 

evidence at sentencing. United States v. Ollison, 555 F.3d 152, 164 (5th Cir. 

2009). Jones had the burden of presenting rebuttal evidence showing that the 

presentence report was materially untrue, inaccurate, or unreliable. 

United States v. Rodriguez, 602 F.3d 346, 363 (5th Cir. 2010).

The district court found that Jones had actual knowledge that the 

$36,600 pecuniary loss had resulted from the offense and that Jones’s contrary 

assertions were not credible. See U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1, comment. (n.3(A)). We 

conclude that those findings are plausible in light of the record as a whole and 

that Jones has not shown that the district court clearly erred. See United 

States v. Brooks, 681 F.3d 678, 713 (5th Cir. 2012); United States v. Harris, 597 

F.3d 242, 250 (5th Cir. 2010). The judgment is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 14-60724 Document: 00513125526 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/22/2015
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER>    1,000

<S>                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                     9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                    OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                      JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                    592
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                             756
<ALLOWANCES>                               46
<INVENTORY>                             1,084
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        3,535
<PP&E>                                  6,085
<DEPRECIATION>                          4,708
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          4,912
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   1,141
<BONDS>                                     0
<COMMON>                                  432
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<OTHER-SE>                              3,334
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            4,912
<SALES>                                 5,711
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        5,711
<CGS>                                   3,708
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           5,424
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          1
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           357
<INCOME-TAX>                              123
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       234
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                              234
<EPS-BASIC>                             .07
<EPS-DILUTED>                             .07


</TABLE>
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

In connection with the Annual Report of Tiens Biotech Group (USA), Inc. (the
"Registrant") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), each of the
undersigned, Jinyuan Li, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Registrant
and Wenjun Jiao, Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, certifies, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:

1.   The Report fully complies in all material respects 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
     Registrant as of and for the period covered by the Report.

Pursuant to the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission,
this certification is being furnished and is not deemed filed.

Date:  March 31, 2005
                                        /s/ Jinyuan Li
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Jinyuan Li

                                        Chief Executive Officer and President
                                        (Principal Executive Officer)

Date:  March 31, 2006
                                        /s/ Wenjun Jiao
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Wenjun Jiao
                                        Chief Financial Officer
                                        (Principal Accounting Officer)
<PAGE>

                        CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

I, Louis E. Prezeau, the Chief Executive Officer and President of City National
Bancshares Corporation (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

(1)  the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended
     September 30, 2005 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
     Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
     78m or 78o(d)); 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: October 25, 2005

                                                /S/ LOUIS E. PREZEAU
                                                --------------------------
                                                Louis E. Prezeau
                                                Chief Executive Officer
                                                and President

                        CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

I, Edward R. Wright, the Chief Financial Officer and Senior Vice President of
City National Bancshares Corporation (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

(1)  the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended
     September 30, 2005 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
     Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
     78m or 78o(d)); 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: October 25, 2005

                                                   /S/ EDWARD R. WRIGHT
                                                   ---------------------------
                                                   Edward R. Wright
                                                   Chief Financial Officer
                                                   and Senior Vice President
#### The United States Life Insurance Company in the City of New York, Appellant, *v.*George W. Poillon et al., Respondents.

(Argued April 25, 1890;

decided May 9, 1890.)

Appeal from order of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, made December 2,1889, *675which affirmed an order of Special Term denying an application by plaintiff for an order for leave to sue to be granted *mmo fro*tono as of a date before the commencement of the action.

*Flamen B. Candler*for appellant.

*JEL~em.ry H. Mam,*and *Wellesley W. Cage*for respondents.

Agree to dismiss appeal; no opinion.

All concur.

Appeal dismissed.