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 Amendment No. 2 to the QuarterlyReport of HPIL HOLDING (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the quarterly periodended September 30, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Louis Bertoli, hereby certify, pursuantto 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 as  of the date and for the periods expressed in the Report. |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| */s/ Louis Bertoli*     |
|-------------------------|
| Louis Bertoli           |
| Chief Executive Officer |
|                    |
| May 10, 2013            |

 

 

 

The foregoing certification is being furnished solelypursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Reportor as a separate disclosure document.
| (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. |
|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                    | TNT      DESIGNS, INC.                                                                 |
|-----------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                    |                                                                                   |   |
| Date:  February      18, 2009 | By:                                                                                    | /s/ Anju Tandon |
|                                    | Anju      Tandon                                                                       |
|                                    | President      and Chief Executive                                                     |
|                                    | Officer      and Director (Principal Executive, Financial and Accounting      Officer) |

----
#### MRS. BETTY S. PARDUE, Administratrix of the Estate of JAMES M. PARDUE, Deceased v. CHARLOTTE MOTOR SPEEDWAY, INC.

No. 6823SC287

(Filed 18 September 1968)

Appeal and Error § 6; Pleadings § 32— appeal from order allowing motion to amend pursuant to G.S. 1-131 — dismissal as premature

Where plaintiff moves pursuant to G.S. 1-131 to amend bis complaint following certification of a Supreme Court opinion affirming a judgment sustaining defendant’s demurrer, defendant’s appeal from the order allowing the amendment is premature and will be dismissed by the Court of Appeals *ex mero motu,*the proper procedure being to note an exception and appeal from the final judgment if adverse to defendant.

Appeal by defendant from *Gambill, J.,*at the 29 April 1968 Session of WilKes Superior Court.

This case was before the Supreme Court on demurrer at the Fall Term 1967. An opinion was entered during the Spring Term 1968 affirming the Superior Court in sustaining the demurrer to the complaint. See opinion appearing in 273 N.C. 314, 159 S.E. 2d 857, for a more complete statement of facts.

Following the certifying of the Supreme Court opinion, plaintiff, pursuant to G.S. 1-131, moved to amend her complaint and Judge Gambill allowed the motion. Defendant appeals from the order allowing the amendment and also, in this Court, demurs *ore tenus*for failure of the complaint to state a cause of action.

*Jordan, Wright, Nichols, Caff rey & Hill and McElwee & Hall by Edward L. Murrelle for plaintiff appellee.*

*John H. Small; Sanders, Walker & London and Moore & Rousseau for defendant appellant.*

*404Britt, J.

Defendant’s appeal to this Court is premature and, *ex mero motu,*is dismissed on authority of *Morris v. Cleve,*194 N.C. 202, 139 S.E. 230, where on almost identical procedural facts the Supreme Court held: “The appeal must be dismissed as premature, since the proper procedure was to note an exception and appeal from the final judgment, if adverse to the defendants. [Citations].”

Defendant’s demurrer *ore terms*filed in this Court is dismissed without prejudice to the defendant.

Appeal dismissed.

Brocic and ParKer, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT
32





CERTIFICATION





Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. 1350 as adopted by


Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002




Each of
the undersigned, David F. Carney, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of
Lincoln Educational Services Corporation (the “Company”), and Cesar Ribeiro,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, has executed this certification in
connection with the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the
Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June 30,
2008 (the “Report”).




Each of
the undersigned hereby certifies that, to his respective 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:
            August
      6, 2008








/s/ David F. CarneyDavid
      F. CarneyChairman
      & Chief Executive Officer/s/ Cesar RibeiroCesar
      RibeiroChief
      Financial Officer
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 98-2997WM

_____________

Delton Corporation, Inc., *

*

Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Western

v. * District of Missouri.

*

MCI Telecommunications Corporation, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

_____________

 Submitted: February 11, 1999

Filed: February 18, 1999 

_____________

Before BOWMAN, Chief Judge, and FAGG and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

_____________

PER CURIAM.

Delton Corporation, Inc. appeals the district court's dismissal of Delton's claims

for declaratory and injunctive relief from arbitration and to recover state law damages

for breach of contract, fraud, libel, and slander. Having reviewed the record in the

context of the parties' arguments, we find the record supports the district court's

decision. Because the parties' submissions show they are thoroughly familiar with

the issues before the court and no error of law appears in the district court's ruling,

we conclude that an extensive discussion is unnecessary. We thus affirm on the basis

of the district court's decision. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
-2-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
1 The Honorable James M. Moody, United St ates District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 05-2469

___________ Roosevelt Dye, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas. University of Arkansas, Southeast * Branch at Rohwer; University of * [UNPUBLISHED] Arkansas, Agriculture Department of * Fayetteville, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: May 5, 2006 Filed: May 11, 2006

___________ Before RILEY, MAGILL, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Roosevelt Dye appeals the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his Title VII employment discrimination action. After de novo review, we agree with the district court that Dye did not pr ovide evidence that a discrete discriminatory act occurred within the limitations period (beginning 180 days prior to his May 22,-2- 2003 Equal Employment Opportunity Commissi on (EEOC) charge), and thus his EEOC charge was untimely and his suit was barred by the statute of limitations. See Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan , 536 U.S. 101, 109-10 (2002) (litigant has up to 180 or 300 days—depending on state—after unlawful employment practice happened to file EEOC charge; claim is time- barred if it is not filed within time limit; term “practice” applies to “discrete act or single occurrence”); Diaz v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc. , 318 F.3d 796, 798 (8th Cir. 2003) (Arkansa s plaintiff had 180 days after alleged unlawful employment practice occurred to f ile EEOC charge); Tademe v. St. Cloud State Univ. , 328 F.3d 982, 987-88 (8th Cir. 2003) (rejecting argument that past discrete acts of discrimination represented ongoing pattern or practice of discrimination for purposes of timeliness) ; Kasper v. Federated Mut. Ins. Co. , 425 F.3d 496, 502 (8th Cir. 2005) (standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
No. 17,540.

#### Emma Bradshaw, etc. *v.*Robert B. Hurst and Robert F. George.

(282 P. [2d] 1100)

Decided April 25, 1955.

Messrs. Parkison & Parkison, for plaintiff in error.

Messrs. Ireland, Ireland, Stapleton & Pryor, Messrs. Petrie & Zimmerman, for defendants in error.

*En Banc.*

*421Per Curiam.

Judgment affirmed without written opinion.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-1150

CHRISTOPHER BERNARD JONES,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 versus

DESMINE SARDIN, President of Liberty Funding;

PERRY S. LUTHI, SR.; LUTHI MORTGAGE COMPANY,

INC.; CAROLINA TAX SERVICE, Carolina Tax

Service, Incorporated; LUTHI CONSTRUCTION

COMPANY; LIBERTY FUNDING; GENERAL FUNDING;

PERRY S. LUTHI, JR.; MARTHA PACE; LORI MURPHY;

CAROL A. SIMPSON; IRA HANDY; HANDY MOISTURE &

PEST CONTROL; PETE PETERSON; RICK DOE, of

Luthi Construction; RON PLATT; SONNY NINAN, of

Rhino Realty; MARSHA PLATT; MICHAEL DOE; DEE

DEE DOE; KIM DOE,

 Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Greenville. Bristow Marchant, Magistrate Judge.

(6:06-cv-00049-PMD)

Submitted: August 24, 2006 Decided: August 28, 2006

Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher Bernard Jones, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Christopher Bernard Jones seeks to appeal an order

entered by a magistrate judge denying his motions for appointment

of counsel and for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000), a magistrate judge may enter a final

order directly appealable to the court of appeals upon consent of

all parties. Otherwise, under § 636(b), an appeal of an order

entered by a magistrate judge lies with the district court. Absent

an express adoption, modification, or rejection of the magistrate

judge’s ruling by the district court, the ruling is generally not

reviewable by the court of appeals. See Reynaga v. Cammisa, 971

F.2d 414, 416-18 (9th Cir. 1992). In this case, we find nothing in

the record showing that the parties agreed to have Jones’ complaint

decided by the magistrate judge. Accordingly, we dismiss the

appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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.

DISMISSED
#### Thomas HUDMON v. STATE of Alabama.

CR-00-0959.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

Sept. 28, 2001.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 21, 2001.

Certiorari Denied Nov. 8, 2002 Alabama Supreme Court 1010544.

Donald R. Cleveland, West Point, Georgia, for appellant.

William H. Pryor, Jr., atty. gen., and Cedric B. Colvin, asst. atty. gen., for appel-lee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED BY UNPUBLISHED MEMORANDUM.

McMILLAN, p.j., and WISE, J., concur; BASCHAB, J., concurs in the result; COBB, J., concurs in part and dissents in part, with opinion, in which SHAW, J., joins.

COBB, Judge

(concurring in part and dissenting in part).

I concur in affirming the appellant’s conviction; however, I would reverse his sentence and remand the case for resen-*366tencing in accordance with Judge Shaw’s special writing in *Poole v. State,*846 So.2d 370 (Ala.Crim.App.2001), with which I concurred as to this issue. As to those points on which I disagree with Judge Shaw, see my special writing in *Poole,*846 So.2d 398. I believe that these sentence enhancements must be charged in the indictment and proved to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the failure to do so is a jurisdictional defect which this Court should notice and remedy on appeal. Therefore, as to the sentencing issue, I dissent.
IN RE: T.T.E.

238A18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 17, 2018

Michelle F. Lynch, Attorney at Law, for T.T.E.

Janelle Varley, Assistant Attorney General, Todd Williams, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 15th of October 2018 by State of NC:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th of October 2018."

State of NC shall have up to and including the 21st day of November 2018 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4778 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4778

  To extend the National Flood Insurance Program to December 31, 2010.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 4, 2010

 Mr. Pomeroy introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To extend the National Flood Insurance Program to December 31, 2010.

    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 ``National Flood Insurance Program 
Extension Act of 2010''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM.

    (a) Program Extension.--Section 1319 of the National Flood 
Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4026) is amended by striking 
``September 30, 2008'' and inserting ``December 31, 2010''.
    (b) Financing.--Section 1309(a) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 4016(a)) is 
amended by striking ``September 30, 2008'' and inserting ``December 31, 
2010''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall be 
considered to have taken effect on February 28, 2010.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>

                      [Deloitte & Touche LLP Letterhead]


INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT

Board of Directors
DaimlerChrysler Corporation
Auburn Hills, Michigan

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheet of DaimlerChrysler
Corporation and consolidated subsidiaries (the "Company") as of December 31,
1998 and 1997, and the related consolidated statements of earnings and cash
flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 1998. These
financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's management. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on
our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material
misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting
the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes
assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by
management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation.
We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, such consolidated financial statements present fairly, in all
material respects, the financial position of DaimlerChrysler Corporation and
consolidated subsidiaries at December 31, 1998 and 1997, and the results of
their operations and their cash flows for each of the three years in the period
ended December 31, 1998, in conformity with generally accepted accounting
principles.

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Detroit, Michigan
January 22, 1999
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

 FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

JEREMY JOHN MARUSKA,

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D16-3317

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

________________________________/

Opinion filed June 1, 2018

Appeal from the Circuit Court 

for Volusia County,

Leah R. Case, Judge.

Marie-Louise Samuels Parmer, of Samuels 

Parmer Law Firm PA, Tampa, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Carmen F. Corrente, 

Assistant Attorney General, Daytona 

Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Jeremy John Maruska appeals his judgment and sentence for first-degree 

premeditated and felony murder and robbery with a deadly weapon. We agree that the 

robbery conviction cannot be sustained under our standard of review and accordingly 

reverse the judgment and concurrent life sentence on that charge. We affirm the 

judgment and sentence on the first-degree premeditated murder conviction.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part.

COHEN, C.J., SAWAYA and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4874 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4874

 To amend title 23, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of 
      Transportation to waive, if in the public interest, certain 
   requirements relating to the letting of contracts, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 17, 2010

 Mr. Ellison introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 23, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of 
      Transportation to waive, if in the public interest, certain 
   requirements relating to the letting of contracts, 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. WAIVER AUTHORITY.

    Section 112 of title 23, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a) by adding at the end the following: 
        ``The Secretary may waive for a project any requirement under 
        this subsection to award a contract by competitive bidding if 
        the Secretary determines, with respect to the project, that 
        such waiver is in the public interest.''; and
            (2) in subsection (b)(1) by adding at the end the 
        following: ``The Secretary may waive for a project any 
        requirement under this paragraph to award a contract by 
        competitive bidding if the Secretary determines, with respect 
        to the project, that such waiver is in the public interest.''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS OF AKI HOLDING CORP.  (OR ITS  PREDECESSOR)  FOR THE THREE
MONTHS  AND  YEAR  ENDED  JUNE 30,  2000 AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY  BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001067550
<NAME>                        AKI HOLDING CORP.
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000

<S>                              <C>                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          3-MOS                      12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                JUN-30-2000                 JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                    APR-1-2000                  JUL-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                     JUN-30-2000                 JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                 1,158                       1,158
<SECURITIES>                               0                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                         22,485                      22,485
<ALLOWANCES>                             963                         963
<INVENTORY>                            7,757                       7,757
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                      30,925                      30,925
<PP&E>                                27,142                      27,142
<DEPRECIATION>                        10,045                      10,045
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       223,937                     223,937
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                 17,166                      17,166
<BONDS>                              144,875                     144,875
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0                           0
<PREFERRED>                                0                           0
<COMMON>                                   0                           0
<OTHER-SE>                            58,834                      58,834
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         223,937                     223,937
<SALES>                               24,243                      98,563
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                      24,243                      98,563
<CGS>                                 15,732                      60,304
<TOTAL-COSTS>                         15,732                      60,304
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           0                           0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          30                         240
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     4,352                      17,401
<INCOME-PRETAX>                       (2,007)                       (850)
<INCOME-TAX>                             (22)                      1,596
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                   (1,985)                     (2,446)
<DISCONTINUED>                             0                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                          241                       1,089
<CHANGES>                                  0                           0
<NET-INCOME>                          (1,744)                     (1,357)
<EPS-BASIC>                                0                           0
<EPS-DILUTED>                              0                           0



</TABLE>