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 Quarterly Report of Platinum Studios, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Scott Mitchell Rosenberg, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 and 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.

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

 

May 17, 2010                                       /s/ Scott Mitchell Rosenberg

                                                                 Scott Mitchell Rosenberg

                                                                Chief Executive Officer and 

                                                                Chairman

 

 

 

                                                                        

----
```

[Federal Register: October 26, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 206)]
[Notices]
[Page 57107]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr26oc98-31]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

TIME AND DATE: 11:00 a.m., Monday, November 6, 1998.

PLACE: 1155 21st St., N.W., Washington, D.C., 9th Floor Conference
Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Surveillance Matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.
Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 98-28761 Filed 10-22-98; 4:03 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```

----

**======== RETURN TO INDEX    ========**

----
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1225 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                 House Calendar No. 182
111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 1225

                          [Report No. 111-458]

Providing for consideration of the Senate amendments to the bill (H.R. 
    4872) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to Title II of the 
concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2010 (S. Con. Res. 
                                  13).

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 25, 2010

  Ms. Slaughter, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Providing for consideration of the Senate amendments to the bill (H.R. 
    4872) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to Title II of the 
concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2010 (S. Con. Res. 
                                  13).

    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution, it shall be in 
order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 4872) to provide 
for reconciliation pursuant to Title II of the concurrent resolution on 
the budget for fiscal year 2010 (S. Con. Res. 13), with the Senate 
amendments thereto, and to consider in the House, without intervention 
of any point of order except those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI, 
a single motion offered by the chair of the Committee on Education and 
Labor or his designee that the House concur in the Senate amendments. 
The Senate amendments and the motion shall be considered as read. The 
motion shall be debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled 
by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education 
and Labor. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
motion to final adoption without intervening motion or demand for 
division of the question.
                                                 House Calendar No. 182

111th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                              H. RES. 1225

                          [Report No. 111-458]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

Providing for consideration of the Senate amendments to the bill (H.R. 
    4872) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to Title II of the 
concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2010 (S. Con. Res. 
                                  13).

_______________________________________________________________________

                             March 25, 2010

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
```
#### JAMES B. SIPE *&*CO. et al. v. COLUMBIA REFINING CO.

(Circuit Court, S. D. New York.

May 3, 1909.)

1. Injunction (§ 114*) — Parties -Joinder of Complainants.

Two corporations, one of which is the successor in business of the other, may join in a bill to enjoin acts of defendant which will injure both complainants.

TEd. Note. — For other cases, see Injunction, Cent. Dig. § 210: Dee. Dig. § H4.*J

2. Equity (.§ 148*) — Pleading—Multifariousness.

A bill to enjoin defendant from using a secret formula alleged to have been fraudulently obtained from complainant, and also from so dressing and naming the product as to constitute unfair competition, is not necessarily multifarious, where it alleges that the acts complained of are all parts of the same enterprise.

[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Equity, Cent. Dig. §§ 341-367; Dec. Dig. § 148.*]

In Equity. On demurrer to bill on the ground that the complaint is multifarious and for misjoinder of parties.

John C. Pennie, for complainants.

Herman Goldman, for defendant.

*

For other cases see same topic *&*§ number in. Dec. *&*Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

LACOMBE, Circuit Judge.

This demurrer could be easily disposed of if it were concerned only with the joinder of the two companies in the prosecution of defendant for its improper acts, which have workfed injury to both complainants, and which acts, if continued, threaten injury directly to the Delaware company and in*296directly to the Pennsylvania company, possibly making it liable to its vendee upon its guaranty.

The objection that the bill is multifarious, because it joins two separate causes of action, is «more serious. It is averred that defendant has fraudulently obtained possession of a secret formula, th$ property (in succession) of complainants, and has been and is manufacturing and selling paint oil made in accordance therewith. -It is also avered that defendant is offering its goods for sale as “Japinol,” which is a colorable imitation of the trade-name “Japan Oil,2 under which complainant’s product has been marketed for many years. The prayer for relief asks that both of these practices be enjoined. It is one thing to steal a man’s secret formula, and by the use of it to produce goods which are identical with those he makes. It is another thing to make up g’oods which are not identical with those he makes, but which are inferior or different from them in some way, and then sell such goods as being in fact the genuine article, through misrepresentations. on wrappers or in advertisements. But as set forth in the bill these transactions are all parts of a single enterprise. It is also alleged that an employé was enticed away and induced to give the names and addresses of customers — unfair competition in an effort to get the trade of person's who wish to make use of paint oil. I am inclined, therefore, *to'*hold, although not without some doubt, that the bill is not obnoxious to the objection that it is multifarious. It would certainly be unfortunate to have tp try this same controversy twice over in separate suits because of too rigid an adherence to rules of practice.

The demurrér is overruled.
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 Lantis Laser Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010 (the “Report”), as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Stanley B. Baron,
President and CFO 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, 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.





/s/
Stanley B. Baron





Stanley
B. Baron


President
and CFO


Dated:
November 12, 2010





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Lantis Laser Inc. and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
| 1.     | Such      amended Quarterly Report of Form 10-Q for the period ending June      30, 2009, 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 such amended Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for      the period ended June 30, 2009, fairly represents in all      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of      Kraig Biocraft Laboratories, Inc. |

| Date:       November 23, 2009                                                       |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                     |
| Kraig      Biocraft Laboratories, Inc.                                                   |
|                                                                                     |
| By:      /s/ Kim      Thompson                   |
| Kim      ThompsonChief      Executive OfficerChief      Financial and Accounting Officer |
No. 391.

#### Dennis *v.*New York Central R. Co.

October 14, 1935.

*Mr. John F. Carlisle*
      *622for petitioner.

*621Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Ohio denied.

*622
      *Mr. Robert Newbegin*for respondent.
Exhibit 32.1

Certification by the Chief Executive Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report MicroChannel Technologies Corporation (the Company) on the Form 10-QSB for the period ending November 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Kaiyo Nedd, President and Chief Executive 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:



(i)

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

(ii)

The information contained in that Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company on the dates and for the periods presented therein.



|                      |  |                                        |  |                                                 
|--------------------- |  | -------------------------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------
|                      |  | MICROCHANNEL TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION.
|                      |  |                                        |  |                                                 
|Date: January 9, 2008 |  | By:                                    |  | /s/ Kaiyo Nedd                                  
|                      |  |                                        |  | Kaiyo Nedd
President and Chief Executive Officer



This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. 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 the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT GARRETT P. MITCHELL, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-3166 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ___________________________________) Opinion filed February 20, 2019. Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Vivian T. Corvo, Judge. Garrett P. Mitchell, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Coughlin v. State, 932 So. 2d 1224 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (en banc); Shortridge v. State, 884 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).

KELLY, MORRIS, and SLEET, JJ., Concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1198 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 1198

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                        April 13, 2010.
Whereas Lock Haven University of Pennsylvania was founded in 1870 as Central 
        State Normal School;
Whereas Lock Haven University of Pennsylvania, located in Lock Haven, 
        Pennsylvania, has 4,665 undergraduate students enrolled at the main 
        campus and 440 students enrolled at the Clearfield campus;
Whereas Lock Haven University of Pennsylvania competes in 10 women's and 8 men's 
        intercollegiate NCAA sports;
Whereas students attending Lock Haven University of Pennsylvania can obtain 
        degrees and certificates from 60 different undergraduate programs and 3 
        different graduate programs;
Whereas Lock Haven University of Pennsylvania has 17,000 living alumni; and
Whereas 97 percent of recent Lock Haven University of Pennsylvania graduates are 
        employed or continuing their education and 84 percent of employed 
        graduates are working in their field of study or chosen field: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives congratulates Lock Haven 
University of Pennsylvania for 140 years of excellence in higher education.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                              21,927
<SECURITIES>                                        33,617
<RECEIVABLES>                                        3,803
<ALLOWANCES>                                           600
<INVENTORY>                                         10,059
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    71,680
<PP&E>                                              11,859
<DEPRECIATION>                                       6,024
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      78,865
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                6,578
<BONDS>                                              1,814
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                            78,261
<OTHER-SE>                                           (960)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        78,865
<SALES>                                             41,339
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    41,339
<CGS>                                               32,274
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       32,274
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       125
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     472
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (10,513)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       (1,542)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  8,971
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (8,971)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       (0.92)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (0.92)
        




</TABLE>
CIRCUIT COURT OF ARLINGTON COUNTY

#### Prospect Enterprises, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Manufacturers Association Insurance Co.

January 9, 1991

Case No. (Law) 90-263

By JUDGE PAUL F. SHERIDAN

This matter came on to be heard on defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

In 1985 plaintiff, Prospect Enterprises, Inc., contracted with Capital Buildings, Inc. ("Capital") to perform roofing and waterproofing work at a certain project in Arlington, Virginia. At times after 1985, Pennsylvania Manufacturers Association Insurance Company provided liability coverage to plaintiff.

As a result of the roofing work performed, Capital made certain claims against plaintiff relating to drywall damage. In 1988, plaintiff notified defendant of these potential claims. In March, 1989, plaintiff received a demand for arbitration from Capital. When plaintiff requested coverage and defense from defendant, defendant denied coverage and refused to defend. Plaintiff then retained its own lawyer for the arbitration proceedings, which culminated on November 28, 1989, with the arbitrator’s award against plaintiff in the amount of $9,395.00. Plaintiff made demand on defendant for reimbursement for attorney fees and to pay the arbitration award. Plaintiff now sues defendant for alleged breach of the insurance agreement.

Defendant seeks summary judgment because the alleged wrongful acts were not covered by any pertinent insurance policy and because plaintiff did not promptly notify it *61of a claim under any pertinent policy. However, there are factual disputes over the interpretation and application of the contract language in regard to specific items (such as drywall damage), and when plaintiff knew of a "claim" presented by Capital. For a summary judgment motion to be successful, there must be no material fact genuinely in dispute. *Day*v. *Abernathy,*204 Va. 723 (1963), and Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia 3:18.

This case presents disputes regarding the time, terms, coverage and mutual obligations of the insurance policies. The question of whether notification was prompt is usually a question of fact. *Mason*& *Dixon Lines*v. *United States Casualty Company,*199 Va. 221, 225 (1957). In addition, defendant claims that the arbitration award against plaintiff is so general in nature as to make it speculative as a matter of law as to which part, if any, of the arbitrator’s award is covered. But plaintiff is entitled to a factual hearing to attempt to resolve that issue.

To grant defendant’s Summary Judgment Motion would require this Court to go beyond the pleadings and determine as matters of law which insurance policy was in effect at the time of the alleged acts, to interpret the timeliness and/or reasonableness of notification, and to interpret defendant’s duties to defend plaintiff and/or to pay the arbitration award. These matters present genuine issues of fact for consideration at trial. Therefore, defendant is not entitled to summary judgment.
EXHIBIT 32.2


                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION


     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Teen Education Group,  Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending  September 30, 2009 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Robert L. Wilson, Principal 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, 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.


Date: November 12, 2009



                                        By: /s/ ROBERT L. WILSON
                                            _______________________________
                                                Robert L. Wilson
                                                Principal Financial Officer