alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT
32.1
 
 
 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 In
connection with the Annual Report of Songzai International Holding Group, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2008 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Hongwen Li, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, solely for
purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, 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, as amended;
  and
 
 (2)
            the
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
      Company.
  /S/
      Hongwen LiHongwen
      LiChief
      Executive
Officer
 Dated:
March 30, 2009
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed March 4, 2015.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D14-3018

Lower Tribunal No. 14F-06104

________________

Abel Di Nobile,

Appellant,

vs.

Florida Department of Children and Families,

Appellee.

An Appeal from the Florida Department of Children and Families.

Abel Di Nobile, in proper person.

Leslie Hinds St-Surin, Office of General Counsel, Florida Department of

Children and Families, for appellee.

Before SUAREZ, EMAS and SCALES, JJ.

SCALES, J.
On October 16, 2014, a hearing officer for the Florida Department of

Children and Families (“DCF”) conducted a hearing on DCF’s denial of Abel Di

Nobile’s (“Di Nobile”) application for Medicaid benefits. On November 14, 2014,

the hearing officer entered a Final Order affirming DCF’s denial of Medicaid

benefits.

On December 16, 2014, Di Nobile filed a notice of appeal with this Court.

As required by rule 9.110(d) of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, the

notice of appeal provided the date of rendition as November 14, 2014. Yet contrary

to rule 9.110(d), Di Nobile did not attach to the notice of appeal a conformed copy

of the Final Order, for the order he attached did not contain DCF’s date stamp.

Subsequently, DCF filed with this Court a date-stamped copy of the Final

Order showing the date of rendition as November 14, 2014. DCF then filed a

motion to dismiss Di Nobile’s appeal on the basis that Di Nobile’s appeal was

untimely. DCF argued that because Di Nobile filed his notice of appeal more than

thirty days after the date of rendition of the Final Order, this Court lacks

jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Fla. R. App. P. 9.110(b).

We are compelled to grant DCF’s motion. We lack jurisdiction to hear an

appeal of final agency action when the notice of appeal is not filed within thirty

days of the rendition of the order to be reviewed. Hawks v. Walker, 409 So. 2d 524

(Fla. 5th DCA 1982).

2
We are powerless to modify this jurisdictional rule even when, as Di Nobile

alerts this Court, the copy of the order he received from DCF did not contain a

date-stamped first page. 

Appeal dismissed.

3
Case 1:07-cv-04462-AKH Document 42 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-04462-AKH Document 42 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 2 of 2
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Gregory Norfleet, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Rockland County (Nelson, J.), rendered February 10, 1987, convicting him of assault in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing a sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The prosecution contended at trial that the defendant approached the complainant and offered to sell him some marihuana. When the complainant declined the offer, the defendant ripped a gold chain from his neck, and then hit him with a stick, breaking his arm.

The defendant’s testimony was that he had known the complainant for approximately two years. On the day in question, the complainant approached him on the street and asked that the defendant pay him $10 which he owed him. When the defendant failed to pay, an altercation ensued. The complainant then hit the defendant in the back with a stick as the defendant was turning to leave. The defendant turned around, grabbed the stick from the complainant and hit him with it. The blow broke the complainant’s arm. The defendant stated that he hit the complainant to prevent the complainant from further continuing to attack him, i.e., in self-defense.

However, both a prosecution witness and a defense witness testified that the defendant struck the complainant as the complainant was backing up. The defendant also testified that he grabbed the stick from the complainant and "hit him back like I supposed to *[sic]”.*

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt of assault in the second degree. Resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the triers of fact, who saw and heard the witnesses *(see, People v Gaimari,*176 NY 84, 94), and their determination should not be overturned lightly on appeal *(People v Garafolo,*44 AD2d 86). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant also contends that he was denied a fair trial *608due to certain comments made by the prosecutor during summation. He did not, however, register any objection to those portions of the prosecutor’s summation of which he now complains and, therefore, he has failed to preserve any legal issues with respect thereto for appellate review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]). We decline to address them in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction *(see, People v Salazar,*112 AD2d 958).

We also find that that defendant’s sentence was not excessive *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80). Mangano, J. P., Brown, Kunzeman and Kooper, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1


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

In connection with the filing of Dynamic International, Inc., a Nevada
corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-KSB for the period ended April 30, 2004,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), the
undersigned, Marton B. Grossman, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
hereby certifies, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18
U.S.C.ss.1350), 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.

Dated: August 12, 2004


/s/ Marton B. Grossman
-----------------------
Marton B. Grossman, CEO
<PAGE>

                                                           Exhibit 10.8

                               ROBINSON NUGENT, INC.
                          SUMMARY OF ROBINSON NUGENT, INC.
                  BONUS PLAN FOR FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1999



     The Board of Directors has adopted a bonus plan for executive officers 
and key employees for fiscal year 1999.  Under the bonus plan for executive 
officers and key employees for fiscal 1999, if consolidated pretax income 
exceeds 80% of the amount specified in the 1999 financial plan, an amount 
equal to 5% of that excess (up to the plan amount), will be available for the 
payment of bonuses; and if pretax income is greater than the plan amount, an 
amount equal to 20% of that excess will be added to the bonus pool.  The 
bonus amount payable to each of the executive officers and key employees will 
be determined by the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company.

                                       30
MICHAEL MUSA-OBREGON & ASSOCIA 

ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 

A PRUL'ESSIONAL CORK)RAnON MCURK)h%EI) M THE S'I'Am OF YO 

55-21 6gTH STREET 

MASPBTH,N.Y. 11378 

s. MICHAEL MUSA~FIREGON* 'EL. (7 18) 803-1000 

PAX NEW lrnSEY OFFICE (718) 507- 8496 

MAW muraobro8cm.%@dunn DUANE M. RIVERS YSQ VELV.4-@ 

RAMl I:AKHOURY+ 111 OlTWATER IANE 

DUANE M. RIVERS' OAFWELD tJJOlU26 

GONNECnCUT OFFICE 

RAM1 FAKHOUW'I, EQ. 

-hid mly in NY. Prdm in NI ad LT limited lo hmipr~m mdNa1und~ irr. 139 MAIN STKEET, SU~ 210 

-Admitld in NY STAMFORD, CT 06901 

4 cdmirmd in NY. CT 

'Admiucd in NJ 

'*drn!acd in NJ, NY 

Honorablc Robert P. Patterson 

United States District Judge 

United States Cowthousc 

500 .~~-~ Pearl Street ~- 

New York, NY 10007 

ELECTRONlCALLY FILED 

DATE FILED: 

Re: United Statcs v. Enxique flinojosa Acevedo 

05 CR. 742 

Z: 

07 CR 482 

w 

0 

Dear Judge Patterson: w 

C/a 

1 respectfully request an adjournment for the above captioned case for tomorrow krl 

sir Thursday December 20.2007 at 2:00 pm time excludable from speedy ma1 in the a -. 

interest ofjustice because attorney unavailability. Tn which I am required to appear on 

Wednesday, December 19,2007. 

1 have advised Assistant United States Attorney Rua M. Kelly and Anirudh 

this mattcr, by communicating by telephone and both attorneys consented to this 

adjournment. 

Thank you for your consideration in this matter. 

CC: AUSA Rua Kelly 

CC: AUSA Anirudh Bansal 

Case 1:07-cr-00482-RPP Document 16 Filed 12/19/2007 Page 1 of 2
LAW OFFICES OF 

S. MICHAEL MUSA-OBREGON, P.C. 

FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET 

TO: ~'ROU. 

Hon. Judge PBtterson Crystal Sosa 

COMPANI: DATE. 

121 1 9/07 

TOTAL NO OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER 

212- 805-0238 2 

FAX: 212- 805-7917 6ENOER'S REFERENCE NUMBER 

05 CR.742 / 07 CR.482 

RE YOUR REFERENCE NUMBER: 

55.21 b91n STRBC'l' MrSPTH NEW YORK. r lllk 

PlltSNE: (118) 803.1111111. WAX (118) 507.Plln 

Case 1:07-cr-00482-RPP Document 16 Filed 12/19/2007 Page 2 of 2
Order entered December 21, 2018

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-01124-CV

ROBERT ALLEN MILLER, Appellant

V.

SHAWN RAE MILLER, Appellee

On Appeal from the 469th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 469-54375-2018

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s December 19, 2018 motion for an extension of time to file 

a brief. We GRANT the motion and extend the time to January 24, 2019. We caution 

appellant that further extension requests will be disfavored.

/s/ ADA BROWN 

JUSTICE
EXHIBIT
31.1





I, Susan
L.N. Vogt, certify that:





1. I
have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of SeraCare Life Sciences, Inc.;
and





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.










/s/ Susan L.N.
Vogt


Susan
L.N. Vogt


President
and Chief Executive Officer


Date:
January 28, 2011
No. 597.

#### E. M. Delk, Petitioner, *v.*St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company.

November 30, 1908.

Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, granted. *Mr. Frederic D.*Me*Kenney*and *Mr. L. M. Walter*for petitioner.' *Mr. W. F. Evans-*for respondent.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ............................................................... X 

GREENTREE STEUBEN, LLC, 

: Case No. - CV 

Plaintiff, OR)*R u: hf~l 

-againstLOCAL 670, STATIONARY ENGINEERS, 

FIREMEN, MAINTENANCE AND BUILDING : 

SERVICE UNION, R. W .D. S.U., 

Defendant. 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR 

PRELIMINARY 

TEMPORARY RE 

ORDER 

ELECTRONICALI,Y FILEC 

Upon the affirmation of Phil Goldstein, signed on June 15, 2007, and the exhibits 

annexed thereto, and the affidavit of Richard L. Steer, sworn to on the 18th day of June, 2007, 

and upon the Memorandum of Law and the Complaint submitted by Plaintiff Greentree Steuben, 

LLC, herewith, it is; 

ORDERED, that the above named 

i Court, at Room bA, United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City, County and State 

/of ~ew York, on June 1,2007, at ;( : 30 o'clock in the noon thereof, or as soon 

thereafter as counsel may be heard, why an order should not be issued pursuant to Rule 65 of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure enjoining the defendant and all those in concert with them 

during the pendency of this action from engaging in an arbitration regarding contract terms and 

conditions andlor Union funds with regard to employees at the Premises located at 195 and 23 I 

Steuben Street, Staten Island, New York; and it is further 

Case 1:07-cv-05768-RMB Document 3 Filed 06/18/2007 Page 1 of 2
-3 

ORDERED, that personal service of a copy of this Order and all 

papers submitted by Plaintiff herewith, upon the Defendants or their counsel on or before 

r" ' *a o'clock in theqbnoon, / / W 7 June B, 2007, shall be deemed good and 

sufficient service thereof. 

4u%bw 40, P047. 

Dated: New York, New York 

ISSUED: !/:SO 

United States District Judge 

Case 1:07-cv-05768-RMB Document 3 Filed 06/18/2007 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>   1

                  CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement of
Bancinsurance Corporation's 1984 Stock Option Plan and the 1994 Stock Option
Plan on Form S-8 of our report dated February 23, 1996, on our audits of the
consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedules of
Bancinsurance Corporation as of December 31, 1995 and 1994 and for the years
ended December 31, 1995, 1994 and 1993, which report is included in this Annual
Report on Form 10-K.

                                                   /s/ Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.
                                                       ------------------------
Columbus, Ohio
February 23, 1996

                                  67
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N
NO. 03-14-00752- CR

Warre n Rand all Hu ghes, Appellan t

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F B ELL COUNTY , 27TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. 695 79, H ONO RAB LE JO HN GAUNTT, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Warren Randall Hug hes filed a noti ce of appea l from a judgment of conviction for murder. See Tex. Pena l Code § 19.01. Howeve r, the trial court cer tified that this is a plea barg ain
case and Hug hes has no r ight of appea l. Hug hes and his counse l signe d the ce rtification. The a ppeal is dismissed. See Tex. R. App. P . 25.2(a) (2), ( d).

J eff Rose, J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Rose and Goodw in Dismissed for Want of J urisdiction Filed: De cembe r 23, 2014 Do Not Publish
# C_2005075EN.01001002.xml

| 24.3.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 75/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 75/10

---

Withdrawal of Commission Proposals

(2005/C 75/05)

The Commission has approved a Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down rules on local border traffic at the external land borders of the Member States and amending the Schengen Convention and the Common Consular Instructions, COM(2005) 56 of 23 February 2005 — 2005/0006/COD. This proposal replaces the previous Commission proposals on the same subject COM(2003) 502 — 2003/0193 (CNS) and 2003/0194 (CNS), of 14 August 2003, which are withdrawn.

---
# EUR-Lex - 52005AP0256 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 52005AP0256

**European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the access to Community External Assistance (COM(2004)0313 - C6-0032/2004 - 2004/0099(COD)) **

*
Official Journal 133 E , 08/06/2006 P. 0116 - 0131 *

P6_TA(2005)0256

Access to Community external assistance ***I

European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the access to Community External Assistance (COM(2004)0313 — C6-0032/2004 — 2004/0099(COD))

(Codecision procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

- having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2004) 0313) [1],

- having regard to Article 251(2) and Article 179 of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C6-0032/2004),

- having regard to Rule 51 of its Rules of Procedure,

- having regard to the report of the Committee on Development and the opinion of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (A6-0182/2005),

1. Approves the Commission proposal as amended;

2. Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it intends to amend the proposal substantially or replace it with another text;

3. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and Commission.

[1] Not yet published in OJ.

--------------------------------------------------
#### UNITED STATES v. Michael R. HARVEY, [ XXX XX XXXX ], Lance Corporal (E-3) U. S. Marine Corps.

NCM 78 0903.

U. S. Navy Court of Military Review.

12 Oct. 1978.

*546Findings of guilty and sentence as approved affirmed.

LCDR William C. Henderson, JAGC, USN, Appellate Defense Counsel.

LT Richard A. Joyce, JAGC, USNR, Appellate Government Counsel.

Before DUNBAR, GREGORY and GLADIS, JJ.

PER CURIAM:

We have examined the record of trial, the assignments of error, and the Government’s reply thereto, and we conclude that the findings and sentence are correct in law and fact and that no error materially prejudicial to the substantial rights of the appellant was committed.

In the specification under Charge II, appellant was charged with wrongful sale of property of the Navy Exchange, Naval Support Activity, Naples, Italy, in violation of Article 108, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 908. Appellant argues that property of the Navy Exchange does not constitute “military property of the United States” and, therefore, the specification does not allege an offense. We do not concur in this narrow interpretation of “military property of the United States,” and we find the specification in question to be sufficient. *United States v. Mullins,*34 C.M.R. 694 (N.B.R.1964); *United States v. Foust,*20 C.M.R. 907 (A.F.B.R.1955). *Also see United States v. Busic,*2 M.J. 1165 (N.C.M.R.1975); *United States v. Dobson,*No. 70 3715 (N.C.M.R. 5 May 1971). *But see United States v. Geisler,*37 C.M.R. 530 (A.B.R.1966).

Appellant also alleges on appeal that the record of trial fails to establish the concurrence of counsel for each side with the military judge’s interpretation of the pretrial agreement. *See United States v. King,*3 M.J. 458 (C.M.A.1977). We note that both counsel had an opportunity to determine the military judge’s interpretation of the agreement through the judge’s questioning of appellant. We find that, by their failure to voice any objection to the apparent concordant understanding of appellant and the military judge as to the meaning and effect of the pretrial agreement, trial counsel and defense counsel indicated their agreement with the judge’s interpretation of the agreement. *United States v. Clendenning,*No. 78 0155 (N.C.M.R. 28 March 1978), *pet. denied,*5 M.J. 360 (C.M.A.1978); *United States v. Blasingame,*No. 77 2008 (N.C.M.R. 18 January 1978), *pet. denied,*5 M.J. 138 (C.M.A.1978).

Accordingly, the findings of guilty and the sentence as approved on review below are affirmed.
Case 1:07-cv-05556-AKH Document 36-2 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-05556-AKH Document 36-2 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2030 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.2030

                     One Hundred Sixteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday,
           the third day of January, two thousand and nineteen

                                 An Act

 
    To direct the Secretary of the Interior to execute and carry out 
agreements concerning Colorado River Drought Contingency Management and 
                   Operations, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
    This Act may be cited as the ``Colorado River Drought Contingency 
Plan Authorization Act''.
SEC. 2. COLORADO RIVER BASIN DROUGHT CONTINGENCY PLANS.
    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law 
expressly addressing the operation of the applicable Colorado River 
System reservoirs, immediately upon execution of the March 19, 2019, 
versions of the Agreement Concerning Colorado River Drought Contingency 
Management and Operations and the agreements attached thereto as 
Attachments A1, A2, and B, by all of the non-Federal parties thereto, 
the Secretary of the Interior shall, without delay, execute such 
agreements, and is directed and authorized to carry out the provisions 
of such agreements and operate applicable Colorado River System 
reservoirs accordingly.
    (b) Effect.--Nothing in this section shall--
        (1) be construed or interpreted as precedent for the litigation 
    of, or as altering, affecting, or being deemed as a congressional 
    determination regarding, the water rights of the United States, any 
    Indian Tribe, band, or community, any State or political 
    subdivision or district of a State, or any person; or
        (2) exempt the implementation of such agreements and the 
    operation of applicable Colorado River System reservoirs from any 
    requirements of applicable Federal environmental laws.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
Amendment to Sale-Purchase Agreement dated August 24, 2005



 Exhibit 10.1 
  
 25 WEST 39TH STREET REALTY, LLC 
  
 November 9,
2005 
  
 VIA FACSIMILE (212) 549-6125 
 AND MESSENGER 
  
 Tommy Hilfiger U.S.A., Inc. 
 610 West 26th Street 
 New York, New York 10001 
 Attention: Jamie Gallagher, Esq. 
  

	 	Re:	Sale-Purchase Agreement dated August 24, 2005 (the “Agreement”) by and between Tommy Hilfiger U.S.A., Inc. (“Seller”) and 25 West 39th Street Realty, LLC (“Purchaser”) for the premises known as 25 West 39th Street, New York, New York (the “Premises”) 

  

Dear Mr. Gallagher: 
  
 Capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Agreement. 
  
 This shall confirm our understanding with respect to certain typographical
errors appearing in the second sentence of Section 4(F)(v) of the Agreement. It is hereby agreed that the reference to “Subsection (ii)” is amended to be “Subsection (i)”, and the reference to “Subsection (iv)” is
amended to be “Subsection (iii)”. The Agreement otherwise remains in full force and effect and shall not be amended except as expressly set forth above. 
  
 Please indicate your agreement with the foregoing by signing below and returning your signature via facsimile to our
counsel, Morris Missry, Esq., at (212) 909-9448. 
  

					
	 25 WEST 39TH STREET REALTY, LLC

		
	By:	 	 /s/ Meyer Chetrit

	 	 	 Name:
	 	 Meyer Chetrit

	 	 	 Title:
	 	 President



  

					
	ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED:
	
	 TOMMY HILFIGER U.S.A. INC.

		
	By:	 	 /s/ Steven R. Gursky

	 	 	 Name:
	 	 Steven R. Gursky

	 	 	 Title:
	 	 Secretary