alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 32

                            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 Allergy Research Group, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2007 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Dr.
Stephen A. Levine, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

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

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

Dated:  August 14, 2007


                                         By: /s/ Stephen A. Levine
                                             ---------------------
                                             Dr. Stephen A. Levine
                                             Chief Executive Officer and
                                             Chief Financial Officer

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 Allergy Research Group, Inc. and
will be retained by Allergy Research Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Rudolph Eady, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The court’s instruction that the jury should consider the defense of justification with respect to each count was sufficient *(see, People v Hoy,*122 AD2d 618; *People v Huntley,*87 AD2d 488, 493-494, *affd*59 NY2d 868).

We have examined defendant’s remaining arguments on appeal and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Monroe County Court, Celli, J. — assault, second degree.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Green, Pine and Davis, JJ.
#### *In re*BURKE, Barry E.

(MR 21036)

Chicago, IL

Order of the Court:

The motion by Barry E. Burke to strike his name from the roll of attorneys licensed to practice law in Illinois pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 762(a) is allowed, effective immediately.
(85 South. 922)

#### HUGHES v. STATE.

(7 Div. 34.)

(Supreme Court of Alabama.

June 3, 1920.)

Appeal from Circuit Court, Etowah County; W. J. Martin, Judge.

J. Q. Smith, Atty. Gen., for the State.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on certificate.
**Exhibit 14.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We hereby consent to the incorporation byreference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 of sanofi-aventis, dated December 21, 2006 (No. 333-139555), June 3, 2005 (No. 333-125490), December 23, 2004 (No. 333-121584 and 333-121583) and July 22, 2003 (No. 333-107238), of our reportsdated March 28, 2007, with respect to the consolidated financial statements, management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting ofsanofi-aventis included in its annual report under Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2006. 

Ernst & Young Audit 

Represented by Gilles Puissochet and Valérie Quint 

Paris-LaDéfense, France 

March 28, 2007
EXHIBIT 32.1
                                                                    ------------



                    Certification of Chief Executive Officer
                        and Principal Financial Officer
                         Pursuant to Section 906 of the
                           Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



In connection with  this annual  report on Form 10-Q  of Excalibur Industries I,
Joseph P. Hubert,  Chief Executive  Officer and Principal  Financial  Officer of
Excalibur Industries, certify, 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 this report fairly  presents,  in all
         material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
         Excalibur Industries.


Date: July 12, 2007                  /s/ Joseph P. Hubert
                                     -------------------------------------
                                     Joseph P. Hubert
                                     Chief Executive Officer
                                     (Principal 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 China Energy Savings  Technology,  Inc. Annual Report on
Form 10-KSB for the year ended  September 30, 2004 as filed with the  Securities
and  Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, Sun Li, Chief
Executive 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, to
the best of my knowledge:

(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.

A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906,  another
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 China Energy  Savings  Technology,
Inc. and will be retained by China Energy Savings Technology, Inc. and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



                                           /s/ Sun Li
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Sun Li
                                           Chief Executive Officer
                                           (Principal Executive Officer)
                                           Date:  January 12, 2005
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 82 (Friday, April 27, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 21186]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-10559]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Special Emphasis Panel in Biological Sciences; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting:

    Name: Special Emphasis Panel in Biological Sciences (1754).
    Date/Time: May 17-18, 2001.
    Place: National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 
320, Arlington, VA.
    Type of Meeting: Closed.
    Contact Person: Dr. James Rodman, Division of Environment 
Biology, Room 635, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson 
Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230. Telephone: (703) 292-8491.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate Partnerships for Enhancing 
Expertise in Taxonomy (PEET) proposals as part of the selection 
process for awards.
    Reason for Closing: The proposals being reviewed include 
information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and 
personal information concerning individuals associated with the 
proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and 
(6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: April 24, 2001.
Susanne Bolton,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 01-10559 Filed 4-26-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________
No. 02

- 18

- 00290

- CV

___________________________

On Appeal from the 360th District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 360

- 596726

- 16

Before Sudderth, C.J.; Kerr and Pittman, JJ. Memorandum O pinion by Chief Justice Sudderth 

### I N THE 

### I NTEREST OF 

### A.M. AND 

### M.M., C HILDREN2 MEMORANDUM OPINION
On September 14, 2018, Appellant B.M. ( Father ) filed a notice of his intent to
appeal the trial court’s termination of his parental rights to A.M. and M.M. Prior to
the termination of his parental rights, Father was convicted of continuing sexual abuse

of A.M.
, and he is currently incarcerated. By letter dated October 1, 2018, and

addressed to Father’s address at the Clements Unit in Amarillo (as listed in his notice
of appeal), we notified Father that he had not paid the filing fee required by appellate
procedure rule 5. Tex. R. App. P. 5. We cautioned that if the fee was not paid by
October 11, 2018, we would dismiss the c ase. Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c).

The October 1 letter was returned to this court with a notation that Father had
been transferred from the Clements Unit pursuant to a bench warrant; this court
subsequently determined that Father was being held in the Tarrant County Jail. The
notice was forwarded to Father at the Tarrant County Jail on October 15, 2018. As of
today’s date, Fath er has not paid the filing fee.
We therefore dismiss this appeal. Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c). 1
/s/ Bonnie Sudderth Bonnie Sudderth Chief Justice
Delivered: November 21, 2 018

1 On October 22, 2018, Father filed a “Request for Deadline Extension” in which he ass erted that he had not received notice of the trial court’s judgment and therefore was entitled to an extension of any appellate deadlines running from the date of the signing of the judgment

. See Tex. R. App. P. 4.2. Father is mistaken, as he attached the judgment to the notice of appeal that he filed on September 14, 2018. We th erefore deny his request for a rule 4.2 extension

.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 78 (Monday, April 23, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20490-20491]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-10005]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET


Cumulative Report on Rescissions and Deferrals

April 1, 2001.
    Section 1014(e) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control 
Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344) requires a monthly report listing all 
budget authority for the current fiscal year for which, as of the first 
day of the month, a special message had been transmitted to Congress.
    This report gives the status, as of April 1, 2001, of two deferrals 
contained in one special message for FY 2001. The message was 
transmitted to Congress on January 18, 2001.

Deferrals (Attachments A and B)

    As of April 1, 2001, $1.6 billion in budget authority was being 
deferred from obligation. Attachment B shows the status of each 
deferral reported during FY 2001.

Information from Special Message

    The special message containing information on the deferrals that 
are covered by this cumulative report is printed in the edition of the 
Federal Register cited below:

66 FR 8985, Monday, February 5, 2001


Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr.,
Director.

                Attachment A--Status of FY 2001 Deferrals
                        [In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Budgetary
                                                              resources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deferrals proposed by the President........................      1,946.7
Routine Executive releases through April 1, 2001...........       -343.6
Overturned by the Congress.................................  ...........
                                                            ------------
    Currently before the Congress..........................      1,603.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------

BILLING CODE 3110-01-U

[[Page 20491]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN23AP01.000

[FR Doc. 01-10005 Filed 4-20-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3110-01-C
Order filed October 15, 2021. 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-21-00430-CV

____________

IN THE INTEREST OF L.A.V. AND S.H.V., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 314th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2019-03748J

O R D E R

The notice of appeal in this case was filed July 27, 2021. To date, the filing 

fee of $205.00 has not been paid. The trial court sustained a contest to appellants’

Statement of Inability to Afford Costs on Appeal and this court upheld appellants’

challenge to that ruling on appeal. 

Appellants are ordered to pay the filing fee in the amount of $205.00 to the 

clerk of this court on or before October 25, 2021. See Tex. R. App. P. 5. If 

appellants fail to timely pay the filing fee in accordance with this order, the appeal 

will be dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Justices Jewell, Spain, and Wilson.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7191

SYLVESTER EMERSON WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

CLARENCE BENJAMIN, Captain, Lieber Correctional Institution; SHIRLEY J. TOMLIN, Lieutenant,

Lieber Correctional Institution,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. C. Weston Houck, Chief District

Judge. (CA-93-2874-3-2BC)

Submitted: November 18, 1997 Decided: December 11, 1997

Before HAMILTON, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sylvester Emerson Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Bunyan Lewis,

Amy L. Gaffney, LEWIS, REEVES & STONE, Columbia, South Carolina,

for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order granting Defendants' motion to compel settlement and denying Appellant's motions

for appointment of counsel, a swift and immediate restraining

order, and disposition of all pending motions. We have reviewed the

record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. Williams v. Benjamin, No. CA-93-2874-3-2BC (D.S.C. July 16,

1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual
Report of St. Jude Medical, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period
ended January 3, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report), I, John C. Heinmiller, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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.

| |                               | 
| | ----------------------------- | 
| | /s/   JOHN C. HEINMILLER      | 
| | John C.
 Heinmiller           | 
| | Executive
 Vice President and | 
| | Chief
 Financial Officer      | 
| | February 27,
 2009            | 

---
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6037 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6037

 To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide for an exception to 
the prohibition against mailing tobacco products for products mailed to 
         members of the Armed Forces serving in a combat zone.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 30, 2010

  Mr. Hunter (for himself, Mr. Whitfield, Mr. Lamborn, Mr. Miller of 
   Florida, and Mr. Rooney) introduced the following bill; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide for an exception to 
the prohibition against mailing tobacco products for products mailed to 
         members of the Armed Forces serving in a combat zone.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. TOBACCO PRODUCTS MAILED TO MEMBERS OF ARMED FORCES SERVING 
              IN COMBAT ZONE.

    Section 1716E(b) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
adding at the end the following new paragraph:
            ``(7) Members of armed forces serving in combat zone.--
                    ``(A) In general.--Subsection (a) shall not apply 
                to tobacco products mailed to a member of the Armed 
                Forces who is serving in a combat zone.
                    ``(B) Combat zone defined.--In this paragraph, the 
                term `combat zone' means an area designated by the 
                President as a combat zone for purposes of section 112 
                of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Dolores Kosiorek, Appellant, v University of Rochester, Defendant, and INA/Aetna Insurance, Respondent.

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Special Term correctly denied petitioner’s application for nunc pro tunc approval of an out-of-court settlement. The statute (Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 [5]) authorizes a Justice of the court in which a third-party action "was pending” to approve a compromise order. Petitioner’s claim that approval can be obtained even though no third-party action has been commenced *(see, Scott v Orange County Dept, of Health,*89 Mise 2d 853) is contrary to the plain language of the statute, and is not supported by the expressed legislative intent of the amendment authorizing such approval *(see,*1966 NY Legis Ann, at 260-261). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Siracuse, J. — approval of settlement.) Present— Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
* Pursuantto 5TH CIR.R.47.5,the court has determined thatthis opinion should

not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances setforth

in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-10892

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSE CRUZ ESPINOZA-TORRES

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:06-CR-23

Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose Cruz EspinozaTorres has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Espinoza-Torres has filed a response.

Our independent review of the record, counsel’s brief, and Espinoza-Torres’s

response discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 25, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 06-10892

2

motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further

responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
#### In the Matter of Jeffrey T. Buley, Respondent, v Henry Tutunjian et al., as Commissioners of the Rensselaer County Board of Elections, Respondents, and Dominic V. Panichi et al., Appellants.

Per Curiam.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Keniry, J.), entered August 15, 1989 in Rensselaer County, which granted petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Election Law § 16-102, to declare invalid the designating petition naming respondent Dominic V. Panichi as a Republican Party candidate for the office of Rensselaer County Legislator, Second Legislative District, in the September 12, 1989 primary election.

Petitioner commenced this proceeding to declare a petition purporting to name, among others, respondent Dominic V. Panichi as the Republican Party candidate for the office of Rensselaer County Legislator, Second Legislative District. Supreme Court granted the petition and declared the designating petition invalid due to uninitialed alterations in individual signature lines and subscribing witness statements. This appeal ensued.

At the outset, we agree with Supreme Court’s finding that the improper service of the order to show cause and petition on certain named respondents is not cause for dismissal as to Panichi over whom sufficient jurisdiction was properly obtained. The improperly served respondents, the committee to fill vacancies, were not necessary parties such that they must be joined to avoid dismissal of the petition *(see, Matter of Berman v Board of Elections,*68 NY2d 761; *Matter of Roman v Power,*10 NY2d 793).

Turning to the merits, we agree with Supreme Court’s apparent reasoning that initials are required for each alteration made to a petition *(see, Matter of Jonas v Velez,*65 NY2d *785954) and its subsequent conclusion as to petition sheet number 8 that one set of initials is insufficient when applied to a signature line where both the ward number and election district number have been altered *(cf., Matter of Liepshutz v Palmateer,*112 AD2d 1101, 1103-1104, *affd*65 NY2d 965). However, we reverse as to the signatures found on lines 19 and 20 of sheet number 8, as only one alteration was made, the election district; thus, only one set of initials was needed.

We also reverse as to Supreme Court’s invalidation of those 12 signatures found on sheet number 14 of the petition. Although an unexplained and uninitialed alteration of a subscribing witness’ statement invalidates the entire petition sheet *(see, Matter of Jonas v Velez, supra,*at 955), we simply do not find the first letter of the word "Troy” in the address of the subscribing witness, written first with a "W” and then with a "T”, to be an alteration such as to nullify the petition sheet.

Finally, by finding a total of 14 signatures improperly invalidated by Supreme Court, we recalculate the number of valid signatures contained in the petition at 263, one more than that required. Consequently, the designating petition was valid.

Judgment reversed, bn the law, without costs, and petition dismissed. Kane, J. P., Casey, Weiss, Levine and Mercure, JJ., concur.