alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.1 - SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION





EXHIBIT 32.1

Section 1350 Certifications



I am
the Principal Executive Officer of Your Event, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the“Company”).
I am delivering this certificate in connection with the Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter year ended May 31, 2013 and filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“Form
10-Q’).



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Your Event, Inc. (the “Company”) certifies
to his knowledge that:

|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                        
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(1) | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended May 31, 2013 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 that Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditions and results of operations of the Company.                                              







|                                                                 
|-----------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                 
|/s/ Masaya Konishi                                               
|Masaya Konishi                                                   
|Chief Executive Officer, Director and Principal Executive Officer
|                                                                 
|July 22, 2013                                                    
|Date
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**





**Certification
      Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**




In
      connection with the filing of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period
      ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
      (the "Report") by China Display Technologies, Inc. (the "Registrant"), I,
      Lawrence Kwok-Yan Chan , Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant and I, Kam
      Ming Yip, Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant,, hereby certify
      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 conditions and results of operations of Registrant.




/s/ Lawrence
                Kwok-Yan ChanLawrence
                Kwok-Yan ChanChief
                Executive Officer/s/ Kam
                Ming YipKam
                Ming YipChief
                Financial OfficerDated:
                January 23, 2008




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 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.
Case 1:07-cv-03545-DAB Document 19-5 Filed 10/22/2007 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-03545-DAB Document 19-5 Filed 10/22/2007 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-03545-DAB Document 19-5 Filed 10/22/2007 Page 3 of 3
# EUR-Lex - - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

#

**Draft amending budget No 1/2012: financing of ITER European Parliament resolution of 20 April 2012 on the Council position on Draft amending budget No 1/2012 of the European Union for the financial year 2012, Section III – Commission (08136/2012 – C7-0088/2012 – 2012/2011(BUD)) **

*
Official Journal C 258 E , 07/09/2013 P. 0161 - 0161 *

Draft amending budget No 1/2012: financing of ITER

P7_TA(2012)0138

European Parliament resolution of 20 April 2012 on the Council position on Draft amending budget No 1/2012 of the European Union for the financial year 2012, Section III – Commission (08136/2012 – C7-0088/2012 – 2012/2011(BUD))

2013/C 258 E/27

The European Parliament,

- having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and in particular Article 314 thereof and to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 106a thereof,

- having regard to Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities [1], and in particular Articles 37 and 38 thereof,

- having regard to the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2012, as definitively adopted on 1 December 2011 [2],

- having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management [3],

- having regard to Draft amending budget No 1/2012 of the European Union for the financial year 2012, which the Commission presented on 27 January 2012 (COM(2012)0031),

- having regard to the Council position on Draft amending budget No 1/2012, which the Council established on 26 March 2012 (08136/2012 – C7-0088/2012),

- having regard to Rules 75b and 75e of its Rules of Procedure,

- having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgets (A7-0097/2012),

A. whereas the purpose of Draft amending budget No 1/2012 is to incorporate in the 2012 budget the amount of EUR 650 million in commitment appropriations into Article 08 20 02 Euratom – European Joint Undertaking for ITER – Fusion for Energy (F4E),

B. whereas this budgetary adjustment is fully in line with the agreement reached between Parliament and the Council in December 2011 in order to accommodate the EUR 1300 million additional cost of the ITER project in 2012-2013,

1. Takes note of Draft amending budget No 1/2012;

2. Approves, without amendment, the Council position on Draft amending budget No 1/2012 and instructs its President to declare that Amending budget No 1/2012 has been definitively adopted and to arrange for its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union;

3. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments.

[1] OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1.

[2] OJ L 56, 29.2.2012.

[3] OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p. 1.

--------------------------------------------------
<PAGE>   1


                                                                    Exhibit 10.9



                          TOUCH 1 COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
                            Post Office Drawer 10751
                           Atmore, Alabama 36504-5741



                                PROMISSORY NOTE
                                ---------------

$13,850,000.00

         For value received the undersigned party, promises to pay, to the
order of Corman Elegre Capital, the principal sum of $13,850,000.00 together
with accrued interest at the rate equal to six percent (6%) per annum. Said
principal and interest shall be paid in sixty (60) equal monthly installments.

                                          TOUCH 1 COMMUNICATIONS, INC.



                                          BY:   /s/ Trey Davis
                                              --------------------------------

                                          Its:  Secretary
                                               -------------------------------

                                          Date: September 10, 1999
                                                ------------------------------
Exhibit 32

The following statement is being
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission solely for purposes of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), which carries with it certain criminal penalties in the event of a knowing or willful misrepresentation.

Securities and Exchange Commission

450 Fifth Street, NW

Washington, DC 20549

Re: Lee Enterprises, Incorporated

Ladies and Gentlemen:

In accordance with the requirements of Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), each of the undersigned hereby certifies that to our knowledge:



|(i) | this quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 29, 2008 (Quarterly Report), fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(ii) | the information contained in this Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Lee Enterprises, Incorporated for the
periods presented in the Quarterly Report.
|---- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |  |  |                                        
|----------------------- |  |  |  | ---------------------------------------
|Date: August 8, 2008    |  |  |  |                                        
|                        |  | 
|/s/ Mary E. Junck       |  |  |  | /s/ Carl G. Schmidt                    
|Mary E. Junck           |  |  |  | Carl G. Schmidt                        
|Chairman, President and |  |  |  | Vice President, Chief Financial Officer
|Chief Executive Officer |  |  |  | and Treasurer                          

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Lee Enterprises, Incorporated
and will be retained by Lee Enterprises, Incorporated and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission upon request.
# C_2009051EN.01002401.xml

| 4.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/24

---

Corrigendum to the public holidays in 2009

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 14 of 21 January 2009
  )

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 14 of 21 January 2009

(2009/C 51/10)

On page 6, under ‘Italia’:

for:

‘1.1, 13.4, 1.5, 21.5, 1.6, 2.6, 21.7, 15.8, 1.11, 25.12, 26.12’,

read:

‘1.1, 6.1, 13.4, 25.4, 1.5, 2.6, 15.8, 1.11, 8.12, 25.12, 26.12’.

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

 TECHSHELL INC., 

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 3:10-cv-154/RS-MD

HARDCANDY CASES, LLC, 

ET AL.

Defendants.

_________________________________________/

ORDER

Plainiff’s Motion to File Under Seal (Doc. 140) is Denied as moot. 

ORDERED on February 8, 2011

 /S/ Richard Smoak

 RICHARD SMOAK

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
#### STATE v. PAUL HINSON.

(Filed 8 April, 1964.)

Appeal by- defendant from *Hobgood, J.,*October 1963 Criminal Session Of PERSON.

*615Criminal prosecution on indictment based on G.S. 14-100 charging that defendant falsely, fraudulently and feloniously represented to one Lonzy Dixon that he (defendant) “was a field representative of the Prudential Life Insurance Co. with authority to make loans for said company” and by means of said false pretense obtained from Dixon the sum of $2,397.20. The jury returned a verdict of guilty. Judgment, imposing a prison sentence, was pronounced. Defendant excepted and appealed.

*Attorney General Bruton and Assistant Attorney General Sanders for the State.*

*Melvin H. Burke for defendant appellant.*

Per Curiam.

We find no evidence sufficient to support a finding that defendant obtained money from Dixon by means of a representation that he (defendant) “was a field representative of the Prudential Life Insurance Co. with authority to make loans for said company.” Indeed, the evidence was not sufficient to support a finding that defendant made such representation to Dixon. Moreover, if such representation were made, the evidence was insufficient to support a finding that it was false. The Attorney General concedes, and we agree, that the evidence does not support the indictment and that defendant’s motion to dismiss as of nonsuit should have been allowed.

Reversed.
#### GORDON E. CULVER v. JAMES LaROACH.

(Filed 27 November 1963.)

Automobiles § 41f—

Evidence tending to show that plaintiff stopped behind a preceding car, which had stopped for a stop light at an intersection, that defendant, who was following behind plaintiff’s car at a speed not exceeding ten miles per hour >and a distance of about thirty feet, applied his brakes but that his car skidded on the ice and snow down ap incline and bumped the rear of plaintiff’s vehicle, inflicting no damage to defendant's car and insignificant damage to plaintiff’s vehicle, *held,*insufficient to ¡be submitted to the jury in plaintiff’s action to recover for personal injury.

Appeal by plaintiff from Armstrong, J., 29 April 1963 'Civil Session of Guilfoed (Greensboro Division).

Plaintiff 'instituted this action to recover far personal injuries resulting from the alleged negligence of the defendant.

On .the morning of 29 January 1962, the plaintiff was operating his 1955 Rambler station wagon in a northerly direction on North Eugene Street in the City oif Greensboro. The 'Street was slick with ice and snow, and sloped downhill to the north.

Plaintiff was operating his istation wagon about 1-% car length® behind a car in front of him. Defendant was following behind the plaintiff. The car in front of plaintiff strapped. Plaintiff ¡applied his fonakes and stopped. The defendant, who was proceeding behind plaintiff at a speed of not more than ten miles par Lour and at a distance of about 30 feat, applied his brake's and hils oar .slid down the incline and bumped the rear of plaintiff’s ¡station wagon. All three cars had stopped for a stop light at the intersection of North Eugene Street and Belle-rn-eade Street. The accident occurred about 100 to 150 feet north of the intersection of North Eugene and Bellemeade Streets.

It was agreed by the parties at the time that no damage ¡had been done to the defendant’s car and that the damage to the plaintiff’s station wagon was too insignificant to report.

At the close of all the evidence the defendant moved for judgment as of nonsuit and -the motion was ¡allowed.

*580The p1air~tiff a.pp~a1's, .ais~signing eirr&r.

Hines & Dettor and Joseph A. Sansone for appellant.

Smith, Moore, Smith, Schell & Httnter for appellee.

PER OIJRIAM.

A oa~efu1 review of the evidenice addueed .ini the trial ihelow leadis us to the conclusion that the evidence is insqifficient to establish actionable negligence on the part of the defendant.

Ph~ judgme~at eairte~red below is

Affirmed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

WESTERN DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

 Respondent 

 v. 

JAMES BUNDRIDGE, 

 Petitioner 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 274 WAL 2015 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 17th day of December, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of 

Appeal is DENIED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-29-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-29-2000
<CASH>                                         252,266
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,246
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,000)
<INVENTORY>                                    164,224
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               508,698
<PP&E>                                          78,988
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (8,779)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,624,500
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          584,424
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        13,832
<OTHER-SE>                                     972,044
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,624,500
<SALES>                                        891,381
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               921,381
<CGS>                                          448,699
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,525,446
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,200
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,056,964)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,056,964)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,056,964)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.06)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2 - SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION





EXHIBIT 32.2

Section 1350 Certifications



I am the Chief Financial Officer of Your Event,
Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”). I am delivering this certificate in connection with the Form 10-Q of the
Company for the quarter period ended May 31, 2012, and filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“Form 10-Q’).



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Your Event, Inc. (the “Company”) certifies
to his knowledge that:





|(1) | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter period ended May 31, 2012, 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 that Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditions and results of operations of the Company.                                             





|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Masatoshi Suga     
|Masatoshi Suga         
|Chief Financial Officer
|                       
|                       
|July 16, 2012          
|Date
394 S.E.2d 906

#### Tivis COMPTON and Ella Compton v. Robert HILL and Donna Hill.

No. 19157.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

July 17, 1990.

James Allan Colburn, Baer, Colburn & Morris, L.C., Huntington, for Robert and Donna Hill.

Paul Ryker, Huntington, for Tivis and Ella Compton.

PER CURIAM:

In this appeal, Robert and Donna Hill, as tenants, claim that the Circuit Court of Cabell County erred in affirming a $12,-686.78 jury verdict for Tivis and Ella Compton, their landlords, of which $10,250 represented back rent and the remainder was for damage done to the premises. The Hills operated a commercial pet shop on the premises. They left in the middle of the lease term claiming that the premises were unsuitable because of periodic flooding.

Evidence at trial established that the water problems were caused by debris placed in the drain from the operation of the pet shop. Other damages were testified to as arising from the abuse of the premises by the tenants. We find no merit in the Hills’ assignments of error and apply the law contained in the Syllabus of *Napier v. Plymale,*167 W.Va. 372, 280 S.E.2d 122 (1981):

> “Where it appears to the Court upon mature consideration that an appeal presents no substantial issues of fact or law which can be considered fairly raised and where the trial court arrived at a correct result, the appeal will be dismissed as improvidently awarded and the judgment of the circuit court will be summarily affirmed.”

*See also*Syllabus Point 1, *Lubeck Meat Packing, Inc. v. Motorist Mut. Ins. Co.,*179 W.Va. 372, 369 S.E.2d 223 (1988).

Consequently, the judgment of the Circuit Court of Cabell County is affirmed.

Affirmed.
lacey_amendment.htm


Exhibit 10.24

 






AMENDMENT NO. 3

TO

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT





This Amendment No. 3 (the “Amendment”) to the Employment Agreement, dated August 15, 2003, as amended on June 30, 2005 and December 22, 2008 (the “Employment Agreement”), by and between Walco International, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”)
and William F. Lacey (the “Executive”) is entered into as of the 3rd day of September, 2009 (“Effective Date”).





WHEREAS the Company and the Executive desire to amend certain terms of the Employment Agreement as set forth herein;





NOW THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:





1.           Capitalized Terms.  All capitalized terms used, but not defined herein, shall have the same meaning as prescribed in the Employment Agreement.





2.           Termination following Change of Control Occurring Prior to January 1, 2011.  In the event (i) of a Change of Control prior to January 1, 2011, and
(ii) within the two (2) years following such Change of Control, the Executive’s employment terminates pursuant to either Section 5.4 or 5.5 of the Agreement; then the Separation Pay Period or payment period specified in Section 5.5 (as applicable) shall be increased to include an additional six (6) months.





3.           Entire Agreement.  This Amendment constitutes the sole and entire agreement of the parties with respect to the second amendment of the Agreement;
supersedes all prior verbal and written understandings and agreements between the parties relating to its subject matters; and may not be modified except in a writing signed by both parties.





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Amendment as of the Effective Date.





 


	 EXECUTIVE  	WALCO INTERNATIONAL, INC.
	
 

 
	 
	
/s/ William F. Lacey

 

William F. Lacey  

 
	
By:  /s/ James C. Robison

 

Name:  James C. Robison

Title:  President and C.E.O.