alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 Quarterly Report of Pax Clean Energy, Inc. (the “Company”)
on Form 10-Q for the period ending October 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Paul Leslie
Hammond, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, 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;
and




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






IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the 22nd
day of December, 2008.




/s/ Paul Leslie
Hammond


Paul
Leslie Hammond


Principal
Executive Officer, Financial Officer


and
Accounting Officer
IV 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1127 

Expressing concern regarding the suicide plane attack on Internal Revenue 

Service employees in Austin, Texas. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 2, 2010 

Mr. DOGGETT (for himself, Mr. CLYBURN, Mr. RANGEL, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts, Mr. TOWNS, Mr. 

BLUMENAUER, Mr. KIND, Mr. PASCRELL, Mr. DAVIS of Illinois, Ms. 

LINDA T. SA ́NCHEZ of California, Mr. LYNCH, Mr. SERRANO, Mr. GONZALEZ, Mr. WALZ, Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. 

CUELLAR, and Mr. ORTIZ) submitted the following resolution; which was 

referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing concern regarding the suicide plane attack on 

Internal Revenue Service employees in Austin, Texas. 

Whereas all Federal employees, and those from the Internal 

Revenue Service in particular, have experienced a terrible 

tragedy in the suicide plane attack on February 18, 

2010; 

Whereas Vernon Hunter, who lost his life in the terror attack, had 48 years of public service, including 20 years 

of serving in the United States Army and 2 tours in Vietnam; 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with BILLS

2 

•HRES 1127 IH 

Whereas Federal, State, and local officials have cooperated to 

respond promptly and professionally to the attack and 

provide assistance to Internal Revenue Service victims 

and families affected by the crash; and 

Whereas Federal employees, from the Armed Forces to the 

Internal Revenue Service, serve their Nation with honor 

and commitment, and perform public service that benefits 

the entire Nation: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) strongly condemns the terror attack per3 petrated deliberately against Federal employees of 

4 the Internal Revenue Service in Austin, Texas; 

5 (2) honors Vernon Hunter, a victim of the 

6 crash, Shane Hill, who suffered severe injuries, and 

7 all those who were injured for their service to our 

8 Nation; 

9 (3) commends Internal Revenue Service employ10 ees for their dedication and public service; 

11 (4) recognizes the heroic actions of the first re12 sponders, emergency services personnel, Internal 

13 Revenue Service employees, and citizens on the 

14 ground in Austin such as Robin De Haven whose ac15 tions minimized the loss of life; and 

16 (5) rejects any statement or act that delib17 erately fans the flames of hatred or expresses symmstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with BILLS

3 

•HRES 1127 IH 

1 pathy for those who would attack public servants 

2 serving our Nation. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-20015 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JUAN MANUEL RUIZ-MOTA, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-01-CR-545-1

-------------------- February 12, 2003 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Juan Manuel Ruiz-Mota appeals his bench-trial conviction for illegal re-entry after deportation following an aggravated felony. He first argues that the dismissal of the original indictment for Speedy Trial Act violations should have been with prejudice. The district court properly considered the statutory factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3162(a)(1), and its supporting factual findings are not clearly in error. United States v. Taylor , 487No. 02-20015 -2- U.S. 326, 337 (1988). Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the first indictment without prejudice and in permitting reindictment. See United States v. Blevins , 142 F.3d 223, 224 (5th Cir. 1998). Ruiz also avers that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b), which was used to enhance his sentence based on his prior aggravated felony conviction, is unconstitutional. Ruiz acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he seeks to preserve the issue for Supreme Court review in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres
. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90, 496; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). Ruiz’ argument is foreclosed. Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED.
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


This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 and accompanies the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q (the "Form 10-Q") for
the quarter ended February 28, 2011 of Castmor Resources Ltd. (the "Issuer").
The undersigned hereby certifies that the Form 10-Q fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that the information contained in the Form
10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Issuer.


Date: April 14, 2011

By /s/ Alfonso Quijada
Alfonso Quijada
Chief Executive Officer, President,
Chief Financial Officer and
Principal Accounting Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony Walter WILLIAMS, a/k/a Tone, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-6739.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Oct. 19, 2010.

Decided: Oct. 27, 2010.

Anthony Walter Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Lisa Grimes Johnston, Assistant Unit-ed States Attorney, Huntington, West for Appellee.

Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Walter Williams appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his motion for reduction of sentence, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *United States v. Williams,*No. 3:98-cr-00048-5, 2010 WL 1881885 (S.D.W.Va. May 7, 2010). We 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.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7350

PHOENIX ANDERSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ALAN MOATS, Judge; LEONARD LUCAS, Magistrate; HOWARD FERRIS, Attorney; JIM SHACKELFORD, (Shackelford Bonding); ROGER HICKMAN, (Shackelford Bonding); CAROL S. BIRDSELL, Court Reporter; ELAINE BENNETT, Clerk of the Circuit Court of Taylor County; JOHN L. BORD, Prosecutor, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, Chief District Judge. (CA-03-152-1) Submitted: January 27, 2005 Decided: February 2, 2005 Before LUTTIG and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Phoenix Anderson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Phoenix Anderson appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by t he district court. See Anderson v. Moats , No. CA-03-152-1 (N.D.W. Va. Aug. 3, 2004). 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
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 106 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 106

 Referring the bill (H.R. 799), entitled ``For the relief of Francisco 
Rivera and Alfonso Calderon'', to the chief judge of the United States 
             Court of Federal Claims for a report thereon.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 3, 2009

 Mr. Filner submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                     the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Referring the bill (H.R. 799), entitled ``For the relief of Francisco 
Rivera and Alfonso Calderon'', to the chief judge of the United States 
             Court of Federal Claims for a report thereon.

    Resolved,

SECTION 1. REFERRAL.

    The bill (H.R. 799), entitled ``For the relief of Francisco Rivera 
and Alfonso Calderon'' and now pending in the House of Representatives, 
is referred to the chief judge of the United States Court of Federal 
Claims.

SEC. 2. PROCEEDINGS AND REPORT.

    Upon receipt of the bill under section 1, the chief judge shall--
            (1) proceed under sections 1492 and 2509 of title 28, 
        United States Code; and
            (2) report back to the House of Representatives, at the 
        earliest practicable date, providing--
                    (A) findings of fact and conclusions of law that 
                are sufficient to inform the Congress of the nature, 
                extent, and character of the claim for compensation 
                referred to in such bill as a legal or equitable claim 
                against the United States; and
                    (B) the amount, if any, legally or equitably due 
                from the United States to Francisco Rivera and Alfonso 
                Calderon.
                                 <all>
```
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED August 9, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit

No. 03-20740

C.H. ROBINSON CO., FIRST CHOICE DISTRIBUTING LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

VERSUS

AGRI-EMPIRE INC., ALEX FARMS CORPORATION, C & G ONION COMPANY, INC., CURTIS DEBERRY SALES AGENCY, F. G. FRESH PRODUCE, JUICE PRODUCE COMPANY, INC., CECGO, INC., doing business as Monsoon Produce, RIVERWOOD FARMS, SUCASA PRODUCE; WEST PAK AVOCADO, INC., Intervenor Plaintiffs-Appellants,

VERSUS

UNION PLANTERS BANK,

Intervenor Plaintiff-Appellee,
VERSUS E. ANCER INC., ET AL., Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court For the Southern District of Texas

H-99-CV-3197

Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA and PRADO, Circuit Judges.* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. 2 PER CURIAM: *
After a careful r eview of the record and considering the briefs of the parties and argument of counsel, we are satisfied that the district court commi tted no reversible error. We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court for essentially the reasons stated in its careful Memorandum Opinions and Orders of February 21, 2003 and May 15, 2003.
AFFIRMED.
| 1.   | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2.   | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition of the Company as of the dates presented and the consolidated result of operations of the Company for the periods presented. |
|----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   By: |   /s/ Tee Kai Shen                                               |
|-----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  Name:     |  Tee Kai Shen                                                         |
|  Title:    |  Principal Executive Officer,Principal Financial Officer and Director |
|  Date:     |  March 14, 2011                                                       |
----

----

|   | (1) | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as      applicable, 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      at the dates and for the periodsindicated. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                                 |   |                                                                                         |   |
|------------------------------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Date:    May      22, 2009  |   | /s/      Cheng Yu Wang                                                                       |   |
|                                                 |   | Cheng      Yu Wang                                                                           |   |
|                                                 |   | Chief      Financial Officer                                                                 |   |
|                                                 |   | (Principal      Financial and Accounting Officerand      Acting Principal Executive Officer) |   |

----
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Otumfoe Jay CARPENTER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-30332.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 5, 2006.*

Filed June 8, 2006.

Joanne Y. Maida, Esq., USSE — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff — Appellee.

Rita J. Griffith, Esq., Griffith *&*Cole, Seattle, WA, for Defendant — Appellant.

Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

The facts of this case are known to the parties.

Defendant-appellant Carpenter challenges the district court’s refusal to excise certain statements from the pre-sentence report that pertain to the gun found in his couch cushions on the ground that there was insufficient evidence to support their inclusion. Carpenter was seated on the couch when the police entered his apart-*612merit, the police recovered ammunition for the gun from Carpenter’s apartment, and Carpenter admitted to possessing the gun in written statements that were submitted to the district court. This constitutes sufficient evidence to support the district court’s decision to adopt the factual findings of the pre-sentence report.

Nor did the district court violate Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32 by failing to make written findings on whether the gun was in Carpenter’s possession. A district court does not need to make written findings resolving any disputed aspect of the pre-sentence report if it determines “that a ruling is unnecessary ... because the court will not consider the matter in sentencing.” Fed. R.Crim. P. 32(i)(3)(B). The district court explicitly stated that it was not considering the presence of the gun in determining Carpenter’s sentence. Nor did the district court abuse its discretion by refusing to hold an evidentiary hearing on the issue of whether Carpenter possessed the gun. *Cf. United States v. Real-Hernandez,*90 F.3d 356, 362 (9th Cir.1996).

All of Carpenter’s other arguments have been considered and they are without merit.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

No. 95-5649

IVAN DWIGHT WALDON, a/k/a Jive'n

Ivan,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington.

Robert J. Staker, District Judge.

(CR-91-188)

Submitted: January 11, 1996

Decided: February 2, 1996

Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Hunt L. Charach, Federal Public Defender, C. Cooper Fulton, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Rebecca A. Betts, United States Attorney, Paul A. Billups,

Assistant United States Attorney, Huntington, West Virginia, for

Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Ivan Dwight Waldon appeals the district court order revoking his

supervised release and imposing a sentence of twenty-one months.

Waldon contends that the district court clearly erred when it found

that a positive urine screen for cocaine, by itself, was sufficient to

establish knowing possession of a controlled substance during supervised release in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(g) (West Supp.

1995). Finding that the district court's factual determination was not

clearly erroneous, we affirm.

We have previously held that the determination of whether culpable use is established solely by laboratory tests is properly left to the

district courts. United States v. Clark, 30 F.3d 23, 26 n.2 (4th Cir.),

cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 63 U.S.L.W. 3421 (U.S. Nov. 28, 1994)

(No. 94-6495); see also United States v. Almand , 992 F.2d 316, 318

(11th Cir. 1993) (district court's finding that positive urine test was

sufficient to establish possession of drugs under§ 3583(g) was not

clearly erroneous). Furthermore, in the instant case, in addition to the

positive drug screen, the Government offered evidence of a continuing pattern of drug abuse by Waldon. Waldon offered no evidence of

passive or innocent ingestion of cocaine and did not dispute the

results of his urine analysis.

Under such circumstances, we cannot find the district court's determination clearly erroneous, and we thus affirm the district court's

revocation of supervised release. 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

 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          50,730
<SECURITIES>                                    61,637
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,357
<ALLOWANCES>                                       724
<INVENTORY>                                      1,445
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               123,982
<PP&E>                                           4,643
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,998
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 128,659
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           19,633
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           351
<OTHER-SE>                                     108,675
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   128,659
<SALES>                                         49,412
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                49,412
<CGS>                                            8,920
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   40,498
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   541
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 10,819
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,369
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,450
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,450
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.22


</TABLE>