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

| 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. |
|----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: March 31, 2008 |        | /s/ Jinyuan Li                                     |
|----------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------|
|                      |   | Jinyuan Li                                         |
|                      |   | Chief Executive Officer and              President |
|                      |   | (Principal Executive              Officer)         |

| Date: March 31, 2008 |        | /s/ Wenjun Jiao                                             |
|----------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------|
|                      |   | Wenjun Jiao                                                 |
|                      |   | Chief Financial Officer                                     |
|                      |   | (Principal Financial and Accounting                Officer) |

----
**EXHIBIT 31.1**I, Mark A. Jackson, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Noble Corporation;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded 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 periodspresented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining 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 ActRules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internalcontrol over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to providereasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and thepreparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance withgenerally accepted accounting principles;c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; andd) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors:a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; andb) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.Date:February 28, 2007   /s/ MARK A. JACKSON   Mark A. Jackson  Chief ExecutiveOfficer, President and Chief Operating Officer
#### AMERICAN SURETY CO. OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. HAZARD et al. Defendants (HAZARD, Appellant).

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

November Term, 1897.)

Action by the American Surety Company of New York against Rowland N. Hazard and others and Emma P. Hazard.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1029 CAF 15-00843
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CENTRA, PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, AND CURRAN, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF PAULA L. GIBBS, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ROBERT LEE GIBBS, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

PAULA L. GIBBS, PETITIONER-APPELLANT PRO SE.

TIMOTHY R. LOVALLO, BUFFALO, FOR RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Erie County (Kevin M. Carter, J.), entered April 13, 2015 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4. The order denied petitioner’s objection to the order of the Support Magistrate.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: On September 19, 1969, petitioner mother was granted an order of support against respondent father for their child, born in 1969. A judgment was awarded on May 5, 1986 for accumulated arrears. The mother commenced this proceeding in February 2014 seeking enforcement of the 1986 judgment and child support arrears from the date of the judgment until the child’s 21st birthday.

We agree with the mother that the Support Magistrate erred in determining that the six-year limitations period set forth in CPLR 213 (1) applies to the 1986 judgment. Rather, the judgment is governed by the 20-year period of limitations set forth in CPLR 211 (b) ( see Matter of Dox v Tynon , 90 NY2d 166, 174; Tauber v Lebow , 65 NY2d 596, 598). Even applying that 20-year period, however, we conclude that the proceeding to enforce the judgment is untimely. With respect to the arrears that accumulated after the entry of the judgment, even assuming, arguendo, that the 20-year limitations period for money judgments ran from each date of default—even though the order of support was entered prior to August 7, 1987, the effective date of CPLR 211 (e) ( see 42 USC § 666 [a] [9] [A]; see generally Dox , 90 NY2d at 174)—we note that more than 20 years have passed since 1990, the year in which the last default in payment occurred.

Contrary to the mother’s contention, Family Court did not err in confirming the Support Magistrate’s finding that the statute of limitations was not tolled pursuant to CPLR 207 ( see Rachlin v Ortiz
, 133 AD2d 76, 76). The findings of the Support Magistrate are entitled-2- 1029 CAF 15-00843

to great deference ( see Matter of Perez v Johnson , 128 AD3d 1469, 1469), and we conclude that the record supports the disputed finding. Although the mother alleged that the father was absent from the state for periods of time, the father testified and submitted evidence establishing that he resided in New York during the relevant period. We reject the mother’s further contention that the court erred in confirming the finding of the Support Magistrate that the father’s conduct after the mother commenced this proceeding did not restart the statute of limitations ( see General Obligations Law § 17-101; Flynn v Flynn , 175 AD2d 51, 51-52, lv denied 78 NY2d 863; see generally Fade v Pugliani/Fade , 8 AD3d 612, 613-614).

Entered: November 18, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
# C_2020027EN.01000902.xml

| 27.1.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 27/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.1.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 27/9

---

Appeal brought on 28 March 2019 by WB against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 23 January 2019 in Case T-579/18 WB v Commission

(Case C-270/19 P)

(2020/C 27/11)

Language of the case: Romanian

Parties

Appellant: WB (represented by: N. Ciocea, avocată)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

By order of 3 December 2019, the Court of Justice (Seventh Chamber) dismissed the appeal as manifestly unfounded.

---
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

In connection with the annual report of Weston Technologies Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date therein specified (the
"Report"), I, Isaacs K. Li, 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.


Date: May 13, 2005


By:/s/ Isaacs K. Li
----------------------
Isaacs K. Li, CFO
(principal accounting officer)
#### In the Matter of W. Stephen Lirakis et al., Petitioners. William E. Murray et al., Respondents, and Gerald Goldfeder, Appellant.

In a proceeding by petitioners, who are discretionary beneficiaries of a trust indenture, to, *inter alia,*(1) remove respondent Murray as a trustee of said trust indenture and (2) surcharge Murray for trustee’s commissions received by him, Gerald Goldfeder, as cocounsel for petitioners, appeals, on the ground of inadequacy, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Benson, J.), dated March 17, 1984, as granted a total of only $5,000 in counsel fees to Goldfeder and corporate cocounsel, to be charged to the principal of the trust.

Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

We note at the outset that appellant Goldfeder has standing to appeal *(Matter of Male Infant B.,*96 AD2d 1055).

It has been consistently held that where, as in the case at bar, legal services are rendered on behalf of individual contestants or beneficiaries of a trust or estate, rather than for the benefit of the trust or estate itself, the attorney for the contestants or *925beneficiaries must look to his client, rather than the trust or estate, for compensation *(Matter of La Grove,*31 AD2d 928, *affd*30 NY2d 624; *Matter of Utter,*17 AD2d 868, *affd*13 NY2d 836; *Matter of Bacharach,*12 AD2d 938; *Matter of Bellinger,*55 AD2d 448). However, in the case at bar, a stipulation was entered into by the parties which provided, *inter alia,*that “[attorneys for each of the parties may submit to the Court an application for attorneys’ fees * * * incurred in the course of this proceeding”. Since the stipulation also provided that “the decision of the trial judge as to the amount of fees * * * if any, shall be final and binding on all parties”, there is no basis for disturbing the award of counsel fees granted to appellant Goldfeder. Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Rubin and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.
* 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

June 13, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-41630

Summary Calendar

SCOTT SAMUEL MONROE,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:04-CV-389

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

Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Scott Samuel Monroe appeals the district court’s denial of his

petition for a writ of error coram nobis. Monroe sought coram

nobis relief from his 1988 guilty-plea conviction for tax evasion.

Monroe asserted in his petition that he discovered for the first

time in February 2004 that a critical element of the offense to

which he pleaded guilty was an intent to defeat or avoid taxes.

Monroe asserted that his conviction was a miscarriage of justice

because the district court failed to ascertain whether he had such
No. 05-41630

-2-

intent and because he did not, in fact, have such intent. He

asserted that a writ of coram nobis was the appropriate remedy for

his claim because he was not aware of the claim until his sentence

was completely served and because he continued to suffer civil

disabilities flowing from his felony conviction.

On appeal, Monroe challenges the district court’s

determination that he failed to show that he exercised reasonable

diligence in seeking relief and had failed to show that unless

relief was granted, there would be a complete miscarriage of

justice. He argues that the record affirmatively demonstrates he

did not have the required intent. The district court was free to

reject Monroe’s unsworn, self-serving assertions in favor of his

sworn affidavit and statements under oath. See Blackledge v.

Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 74 (5th Cir. 1977). Monroe thus fails to

show an error resulting in a complete miscarriage of justice. See

United States v. Dyer, 136 F.3d 417, 422, 430 (5th Cir. 1998).

Further, Monroe has failed to offer sound reasons for his failure

to seek relief earlier. Id. The district court did not abuse its

discretion in denying the petition.

AFFIRMED.
# C_2019280EN.01001502.xml

| 19.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/15

---

Appeal brought on 17 January 2019 by Seven SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 21 November 2018 in Case T-339/17: Shenzhen Jiayz Photo Industrial v EUIPO — Seven

(Case C-31/19 P)

(2019/C 280/20)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Seven SpA (represented by: L. Trevisan, avvocato)

Other parties to the proceedings: Shenzhen Jiayz Photo Industrial Ltd, European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of 2 July 2019 the Court of Justice (Seventh Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.

---
Exhibit 32.2







Certification of Principal Executive Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350

(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)





I, Hua Meng, Chief Financial Officer of Dahua 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 the best of my knowledge, based upon a review of the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2007 of the Company, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"):



(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 Registrant.





|                                                               | 
|-------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|By: Hua Meng                                                   | 
|Hua Meng, Chief Financial Officer                              | 
|(Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer) | 
|                                                               | 
|March 28, 2007                                                 |
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

Order 

March 10, 2014

148865 (28)

ANTHONY EUGENE FLEMMING, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 148865

COA: 318227

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, NEWBERRY

CORRECTIONAL FACILITY WARDEN and KENT 

COUNTY PROSECUTOR, 

Defendants-Appellees.

___________________________________

 On order of the Chief Justice, plaintiff’s motion to waive fees is DENIED because 

MCL 600.2963 requires that a prisoner pursuing a civil action be liable for filing fees. 

Ordinarily, MCL 600.2963(8) would preclude plaintiff from seeking leave to appeal in 

this Court because of an inability to provide the initial partial fee. However, applying 

that statutory section to bar plaintiff from initiating an application for leave to appeal 

from the original complaint for habeas corpus filed in the court of appeals would violate 

the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Smith v Bennett, 365 US 

708; 81 S Ct 895; 6 L Ed 2d 39 (1961). 

The Clerk shall furnish two copies of this order to plaintiff. Plaintiff has 21 days 

from the certification of this order to submit one of those copies to this Court. By doing 

that, plaintiff becomes responsible for paying the $375 filing fee. MCL 600.2963. 

Failure to timely submit the order will result in the appeal not being docketed in this 

Court. The Clerk shall retain plaintiff’s pleadings until he timely submits the order or the 

21-day period for doing so has expired.

Plaintiff is not required to pay an initial partial fee at the time he submits the order 

to this Court. The Department of Corrections is directed to collect amounts equal to 50 

percent of the deposits made to plaintiff’s account each month and remit $375 to this 

Court when that full amount is collected. Plaintiff may not file further appeals in this 
I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 March 10, 2014

2

Clerk

Court from civil cases initiated by him until the entry fee in this appeal is paid in 

full. MCL 600.2963(8).
#####  

**Exhibit 31**

AMANASU TECHNO HOLDINGS**Certification of President and Principal Financial Officer				Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) of the Exchange Act				As Adopted Pursuant to				Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

			I, Yukinori Yoshino, certify that:

- I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Amanasu Technologies Corporation;
-  					Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual report;				 
-  					Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included					in this annual 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 annual report;				 
-  					I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures					(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:				 
							designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 annual report is being prepared;						
							evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and							procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this							annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and						
							presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness							of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of							the Evaluation Date;						

-  					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):				 
							all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls							which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,							summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's							auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and						
							any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees							who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and						

-  					I have indicated in this annual report whether or not there were significant					changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect					internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including					any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.				 

 Dated: April 13, 2009
112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 535 

AN ACT 

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to lease certain 

lands within Fort Pulaski National Monument, and for 

other purposes. 

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

†S 535 ES

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Fort Pulaski National 

3 Monument Lease Authorization Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. LEASE AUTHORIZATION. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of the Interior (re6 ferred to in this section as the ‘‘Secretary’’) may lease to 

7 the Savannah Bar Pilots Association, or a successor orga8 nization, no more than 30,000 square feet of land and im9 provements within Fort Pulaski National Monument (re10 ferred to in this section as the ‘‘Monument’’) at the loca11 tion on Cockspur Island that has been used continuously 

12 by the Savannah Bar Pilots Association since 1940. 

13 (b) RENTAL FEE AND PROCEEDS.— 

14 (1) RENTAL FEE.—For the lease authorized by 

15 this Act, the Secretary shall require a rental fee 

16 based on fair market value adjusted, as the Sec17 retary deems appropriate, for amounts to be ex18 pended by the lessee for property preservation, 

19 maintenance, or repair and related expenses. 

20 (2) PROCEEDS.—Disposition of the proceeds 

21 from the rental fee required pursuant to paragraph 

22 (1) shall be made in accordance with section 3(k)(5) 

23 of Public Law 91–383 (16 U.S.C. 1a–2(k)(5)). 

24 (c) TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—A lease entered into 

25 under this section— 
3 

†S 535 ES

1 (1) shall be for a term of no more than 10 

2 years and, at the Secretary’s discretion, for succes3 sive terms of no more than 10 years at a time; and 

4 (2) shall include any terms and conditions the 

5 Secretary determines to be necessary to protect the 

6 resources of the Monument and the public interest. 

7 (d) EXEMPTION FROM APPLICABLE LAW.—Except 

8 as provided in section 2(b)(2) of this Act, the lease author9 ized by this Act shall not be subject to section 3(k) of 

10 Public Law 91–383 (16 U.S.C. 1a–2(k)) or section 321 

11 of Act of June 30, 1932 (40 U.S.C. 1302). 

Passed the Senate November 2, 2011. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 
112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 535 

AN ACT 

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to lease 

Monument, and for other purposes. certain lands within Fort Pulaski National