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 Form 10-QSB of Madison Avenue Holdings, Inc. (the
"Company") for the quarter ended June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


/s/ Alex Kam
-------------------------------------
Alex Kam
Chief Executive Officer and President
(principal executive officer)

Date: August 6, 2007


/s/ Pan-Rong Liu
-------------------------------------
Pan-Rong Liu
Chief Financial Officer
(principal financial officer
and principal accounting officer)

Date: August 6, 2007

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Madison Avenue Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by Madison Avenue
Holdings, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6213
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOCK DECARLOS JONES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CR-92-424-JFM, CA-97-87-JFM) Submitted: September 11, 1997 Decided: September 19, 1997 Before RUSSELL, MURNAGHAN, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jock DeCarlos Jones, Appellant Pro Se. William Warren Hamel, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion andfind no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Jones , Nos. CR-92-424-JFM; CA-97-87-JFM (D. Md. Jan. 21, 1997). Additionally, we dismiss the § 2255 motion to vacate sentence that the Appellant filed in this court. We dispensewith 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.

DISMISSED
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4703 

To prohibit the further extension or establishment of national monuments 

in California except by express authorization of Congress. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 25, 2010 

Mr. HERGER (for himself, Mr. MCCLINTOCK, Mr. MCKEON, Mr. GALLEGLY, 

Mr. HUNTER, Mr. ROHRABACHER, Mr. CAMPBELL, and Mr. DANIEL E. 

LUNGREN of California) introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To prohibit the further extension or establishment of national 

monuments in California except by express authorization 

of Congress. 

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

3 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON FURTHER EXTENSION OR ES4 TABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL MONUMENTS IN 

5 CALIFORNIA. 

6 This proviso of the last sentence of the first section 

7 of the Act of September 14, 1950 (64 Stat. 849, chapter 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4703 IH

1 950; 16 U.S.C. 431a), is amended by inserting ‘‘or Cali2 fornia’’ after ‘‘Wyoming’’. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Corinthian Colleges, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the
fiscal year ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Kenneth S. Ord, 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 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 result of operations of the Company.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                        
|--------------------------------------------------------
|                                                        
|/s/ Kenneth S. Ord                                      
|Kenneth S. Ord Chief Financial Officer November 22, 2006
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4638 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4638

To designate Union Station in Washington, DC, as the ``Harry S. Truman 
                            Union Station''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 9, 2014

Mr. Cleaver (for himself, Mr. Graves of Missouri, Ms. Norton, Mr. Long, 
  Mr. Clay, Mr. Luetkemeyer, Mr. Smith of Missouri, Mrs. Wagner, Mr. 
 Huffman, Mrs. Hartzler, and Mr. Yoder) introduced the following bill; 
       which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and 
                             Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To designate Union Station in Washington, DC, as the ``Harry S. Truman 
                            Union Station''.

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

SECTION 1. HARRY S. TRUMAN UNION STATION.

    (a) Designation.--Union Station, located at 405 Massachusetts 
Avenue, NE., Washington, DC, shall be known and designated as the 
``Harry S. Truman Union Station''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Harry S. 
Truman Union Station''.
                                 <all>
```
#### William G. Burns, *Plaintiff in Error,*v. State of Florida, *Defendant in Error.*

Division B.

Decision Filed March 15, 1928.

*Willard ds Knight,*for Plaintiff in Error;

*Ered H. Davis,*Attorney General, and *Boy Campbell,*Assistant, for the State.

Per Curiam.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the judgment herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said judgment; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the said judgment be and the same is hereby affirmed.

Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
MARLON DEVONN LAVINE

,
Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,
Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 16

- 3453

_____________________________/

Opinion filed September 1, 2017.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Okaloosa County

. John T. Brown

, Judge

.
Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Lori A. Willner, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee , for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General; Angela R. Hensel and Jason W. Rodriguez, Assistant Attorneys General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS

, MAKAR and JAY

, J J

. , CONCUR.
Exhibit 13.2







CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 USC. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002






I, V. Balakrishnan, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Infosys Technologies Limited for the year ended March 31, 2011 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that information contained in such Annual Report on Form 20-F fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Infosys Technologies Limited.






Date: May 6, 2011













/s/ V. BALAKRISHNAN




V. Balakrishnan


Chief Financial Officer
# L_2009032EN.01S00301.xml

| 31.1.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 32/s3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.1.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 32/s3

---

NOTE TO THE READER

The institutions have decided to no longer quote in their texts the last amendment to cited acts.

Unless otherwise indicated, references to acts in the texts published here are to the version of those acts currently in force.

---
<PAGE>   1


                                                                    Exhibit 23.1






                              Consent of KPMG LLP



To Board of Directors
Northfield Laboratories Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos.
333-15877, 333-51681, and 333-79579) on Form S-8 of Northfield Laboratories Inc.
of our report dated July 2, 1998, relating to the balance sheets of Northfield
Laboratories Inc. as of May 31, 1999 and 1998, and the related statements of
operations, stockholders' equity (deficit), and cash flows for each of the years
in the three-year period ended May 31, 1999 and for the cumulative period from
June 19, 1985 (inception) through May 31, 1999, which report appears in the May
31, 1999 annual report on Form 10-K of Northfield Laboratories Inc.



                                        KPMG LLP [LOGO]



Chicago, Illinois
August 25, 1999


                                      -36-
#### Dexter GUNN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D03-1302.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Aug. 13, 2003.

Dexter Gunn, Miami, pro se.

Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Sue-Ellen Kenny, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Dexter Gunn (Appellant) appeals an order entered February 12, 2003, summarily *910denying his motion for postconviction relief,1 filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. At the time the trial court ruled, it lacked jurisdiction to do so because its order summarily denying a prior motion filed pursuant to rule 3.850, entered November 4, 2002, was then on appeal in this court, the notice of appeal having been filed on November 14, 2002.2

As the state acknowledges in its response to this court, the trial court should have stayed the motion until this court issued its mandate in the prior appeal. Alternatively, it could have dismissed the motion, but this court has noted that staying is preferable. *See Cross v. State,*834 So.2d 961 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); *Washington v. State,*823 So.2d 248, 249 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). Accordingly, we vacate the order on appeal and direct the trial court on remand to rule on Appellant’s motion.

SHAHOOD, GROSS and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

1

. The order on appeal purports to deny Appellant's rule 3.850 motion “which was filed on January 9, 2002.” We assume this date is a scrivener's error, as the summary record transmitted to this court indicates the ruling denied the motion which Appellant served on December 6 and filed on December 27, 2002.

2

. This court affirmed per curiam without opinion on May 28, 2003, and the mandate issued on June 27, 2003. *See Gunn v. State,*848 So.2d 333 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003).
<Page>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.9

                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

The Board of Directors
Mitsubishi Motors Europe B.V.

    We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement on
Form F-3 (No. 333-13160) of DaimlerChrysler North America Holding Corporation
and the registration statements of Form S-8 (Nos. 333-5074, 333-7082, 333-8998,
333-86934 and 333-86936) of DaimlerChrysler AG of our report dated March 22,
2002, with respect to the consolidated balance sheet of Mitsubishi Motors Europe
B.V. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2001, and the related consolidated
statements of operations, stockholders' equity, and cash flows for the year then
ended, which report appears in the December 31, 2001, annual report on
Form 20-F/A of DaimlerChrysler AG.

                                                                   Ernst & Young

September 25, 2002
Amsterdam, the Netherlands
### M A N D A T E

TO THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 of HIDALGO COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas, on the 16th day of July,

2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

MIGUEL MALDONADO, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

CAUSE NO. 13-12-00586-CR (Tr.Ct.No. CR-10-5416-B)

was determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED. The Court

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

      

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals

for the Thirteenth District of Texas, in this behalf, and in all things have it duly

recognized, obeyed and executed.

WITNESS, the Hon. Rogelio Valdez, Chief Justice of our Court of Appeals, with the seal

thereof affixed, at the City of Edinburg, Texas this 29th day of September, 2015.

Dorian E. Ramirez, CLERK
Exhibit 32.2
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection  with the Annual Report of  theglobe.com  (the  "Company") on Form
10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Garrett  Pettingell,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
to the best of my knowledge and belief:

     (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: March 30, 2004





/s/ Garrett Pettingell
------------------------------
Name: Garrett Pettingell
Title: Chief Financial Officer



                                       47
#### Jonathan E. Bell, Appellant, v Philip DeSantis et al., Respondents.

[719 NYS2d 868]

In an action, *inter alia,*to recover interest paid on loans, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Fredman, J.), dated February 4, 2000, which, upon his default in opposing the defendants’ motion for leave to renew his prior motion for summary judgment, granted the defendants’ motion for leave to renew, and upon renewal, denied his motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.

*597By order dated September 24, 1999, the Supreme Court, Westchester County, granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment. Thereafter, the defendants moved for leave to renew the plaintiff’s motion. Based on the plaintiffs representations that he had not been served with the defendants’ motion papers, the court granted his request to adjourn the motion. However, the defendants subsequently presented proof that they did serve the plaintiff with notice of the motion and that the plaintiff refused to accept service of the motion. Thus, the court refused to consider the plaintiffs opposition to the defendants’ motion.

No appeal lies from an order made upon the default of the appealing party *(see,*CPLR 5511; *Forma v City of New York,*273 AD2d 271). The proper procedure for the plaintiff was to move to open his default and vacate the order dated February 4, 2000, and, if necessary, appeal from the denial of the motion to vacate *(see, Forma v City of New York, supra,*at 272). Ritter, J. P., Friedmann, H. Miller and Smith, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Dennis Alston, Appellant.

[719 NYS2d 566]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Nicholas Figueroa, J.), rendered October 21, 1998, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 4V2 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s motion to suppress identification testimony was properly denied without a hearing *(see, People v Wharton,*74 NY2d 921). The observing officer radioed defendant’s description to a backup officer who apprehended defendant, after an attempt at flight, shortly thereafter. The identification by the observing officer three hours after the sale, upon the completion of the observation post operation, was a confirmatory police procedure for which a *Wade*hearing was not required *(see, People v Rampersant,*272 AD2d 202, *lv denied*95 NY2d 870; *People v Broadwater,*248 AD2d 719, *lv denied*92 NY2d 848; *People v Cordero,*227 AD2d 290, *lv denied*88 NY2d 1020).

We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining claims, including those contained in his *pro se*supplemental brief. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Tom, Ellerin, Rubin and Buckley, JJ. [As amended by unpublished order entered May 15, 2001.]
Exhibit 21.1



Romacorp, Inc.
List of Subsidiaries



Set forth below is a list of the Registrant's subsidiaries as of March 30, 2003.





|Name of Subsidiary              |  | Jurisdiction ofOrganization
|------------------------------- |  | ---------------------------
|                                |  |                            
|Roma Bar Management Corporation |  | Texas                      
|Roma Franchise Corporation      |  | Delaware                   
|Roma Systems, Inc.              |  | Delaware                   
|Roma Dining, LP                 |  | Delaware                   
|Roma Holdings, Inc.             |  | Delaware                   
|Costillias Dominicana S.A.      |  | Dominican Republic         
|Roma Prince George's, Inc.      |  | Maryland                   
|Roma Owings Mills, Inc.         |  | Maryland                   
|Roma Sahara, Inc.               |  | Nevada                     
|Roma Huntington Beach, Inc.     |  | Delaware
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4817 

To amend the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 to 

clarify that uncertified States and Indian tribes have the authority to 

use certain payments for certain noncoal reclamation projects. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 10, 2010 

Mr. TEAGUE (for himself, Mr. LUJA ́N, and Mr. HEINRICH) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act 

of 1977 to clarify that uncertified States and Indian 

tribes have the authority to use certain payments for 

certain noncoal reclamation projects. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ABANDONED MINE RECLAMATION. 

4 (a) LIMITATION ON FUNDS.—Section 409(b) of the 

5 Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 

6 U.S.C. 1239(b)) is amended by inserting ‘‘or section 

7 411(h)(1)’’ after ‘‘section 402(g)’’. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4817 IH

1 (b) USE OF FUNDS.—Section 411(h)(1)(D)(ii) of the 

2 Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 

3 U.S.C. 1240a(h)(1)(D)(ii)) is amended by inserting ‘‘or 

4 409’’ after ‘‘section 403’’. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-20117

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ALBERTO AGUIRRE,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas 

USDC No. 4:10-CR-474-2

Before DAVIS, OWEN, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Alberto Aguirre has moved for leave

to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386

U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). 

Aguirre has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the

relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s

assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. 

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

December 17, 2012

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

 Case: 12-20117 Document: 00512085724 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/17/2012
No. 12-20117

excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 

See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

2

 Case: 12-20117 Document: 00512085724 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/17/2012