alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32

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 report on Form 10-Q of SunVesta, Inc., for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Josef Mettler, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

|(1) | This 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 this report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the registrant at the end of the period covered by this report and results of operations of the registrant for the period covered by this report.

Date: August 16, 2010

/s/ Josef MettlerJosef MettlerChief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

This certification accompanies this report pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the registrant for the purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. This certification shall not be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of this report), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.

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

---
#### FRED HOOD, by His Next Friend, and S. L. HOOD v. ORANGE CRUSH BOTTLING COMPANY.

(Filed 1 December, 1926.)

Appeal by defendant from *Lyon, J.,*at March Term, 1926, of MecK- ' leNbueg. No error.

*828Two actions, one by Fred Hood, a minor, and the other by S. L. Hood, his father, for damages alleged to have been caused by the negligence of -defendant, were consolidated for trial.

From verdict sustaining the allegations of plaintiffs, and determining the amount which each is entitled to recover as damages, defendant appealed to the Supreme Court.

*A. B. Justice and John M. Robinson for plaintiffs.*

*Pharr & Currie and James A. Lockhart for defendant.*

Per Curiam.

Fred Hood, a minor 14 years of age, was injured in a collision on a street in the city of Charlotte between the bicycle which he was riding and a truck owned by defendant, and operated by its driver. The jury found that the collision was due to the negligence of defendant, and that Fred Hood did not by his own negligence contribute to his injury as alleged in the answer. The jury further found that Fred Hood was entitled to recover of defendant as damages the sum of $790, and that S. L. Hood, his father, was entitled to recover as his damages the sum of $200.

There was conflict in the evidence as to the manner in which the collision occurred. The jury found the facts to be as testified by witnesses for plaintiff. Hiss FCattie Cole, a witness for plaintiff, testified that she saw the collision. She said: “I was going south to Bead’s store, which is south of the intersection of Yance and Hint streets. To the best of my knowledge, I was about 25 feet from the intersection of Yance and Hint streets when the collision occurred. I saw the automobile before the bicycle came. They were coming toward me. The truck was about a length or two lengths behind the boy; just as he got up, before he got to the intersection of Yance Street, the truck speeded up and tried to get in ahead of the boy up Yance Street. The front part of the truck hit the boy, caught him and the bicycle on the curb, and the back of the truck ran over his foot. The driver of the truck gave-no signal before he speeded up. He did not blow his horn and did not throw out his hand. I am not related to Hr. Hood or his family in any way; just know him when I see him; that is all.” There was other evidence sustaining the allegations of the complaint.

We find no error upon the trial of these actions. Assignments of error based upon exceptions to the charge of the court to the jury cannot be sustained. The judgment is affirmed.

No error.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DAVONN ROSS,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 247 WAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 24th day of October, 2017

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
EXHIBIT 11
                        COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

The Company has computed and presented  earnings per share ("EPS") in accordance
with Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 128.  Reconciliation of the
numerators and the  denominators of the basic and diluted per share  computation
for net income are as follows:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                (amounts in thousands, except per share data)
                                                                                 (unaudited)

                                                                Income           Shares             Per-Share
                                                                (Numerator)      (Denominator)        Amount
                                                                -----------      -------------      ---------
<S>                                                             <C>              <C>                <C>
Three months ended March 31, 2008
   Basic EPS
      Net income and income available to common shareholders    $ 1,081              1,685            $ .64
      Effect of dilutive securities, options                                             0
                                                                -------              -----
   Diluted EPS
      Income available to common shareholders and assumed
         conversions                                            $ 1,081              1,685            $ .64
                                                                =======              =====

Three months ended March 31, 2007
   Basic EPS
      Net income and income available to common shareholders    $   934              1,684            $ .55
      Effect of dilutive securities, options                                             0
                                                                -------              -----
   Diluted EPS
      Income available to common shareholders and assumed
         conversions                                            $   934              1,684            $ .55
                                                                =======              =====
</TABLE>
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 17, 2018

No. 04-18-00456-CR

Henry T. GARLAND,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2001CR7086

Honorable Catherine Torres-Stahl, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Henry T. Garland filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s May 4, 2018 order 

denying Garland’s request for appointment of counsel pursuant to Chapter 64 of the Texas Code 

of Criminal Procedure. The clerk’s record has been filed.

 The trial court’s decision to deny a request for appointed counsel to assist in filing a 

motion for DNA testing under Chapter 64 is not an appealable order. See Whitfield v. State, 430 

S.W.3d 405, 408 n. 11 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); Ex parte Gutierrez, 337 S.W.3d 883, 889 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2011). We therefore order appellant to show cause by August 1, 2018 why this 

appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 17th day of July, 2018.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

May 29, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-2183

Braeburn Systems LLC:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request concerns a product strategically important or related to 

“Made in China 2025” or other Chinese industrial programs.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000882343
<NAME> 90BC
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         132,031
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  143,411
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               275,442
<PP&E>                                       9,612,816
<DEPRECIATION>                               7,939,049
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,949,209
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           24,507
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,924,702
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,949,209
<SALES>                                        907,791
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               913,486
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  749,072
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                164,414
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            164,414
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   164,414
<EPS-BASIC>                                      13.68
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
Exhibit 99.1

**Certification of CEO and CFO Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asAdopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of BlackRock, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarterly periodending September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Laurence D. Fink, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Paul L. Audet, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company,each hereby certifies, 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 andresults of operations of the Company.

|  
/s/ LAURENCE D. FINK

 
 
 
Name:

**Laurence D. Fink**

 
Title:

**Chief Executive Officer**

 
Date:

**November 13, 2002**

 
 
 
 
 
/s/ PAUL L. AUDET

 
 
 
Name:

**Paul L. Audet**

 
Title:

**Chief Financial Officer**

 
Date:

**November 13, 2002**

  |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

August 19, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4032

Alo USA Inc:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request did not contain a sufficient product identification or was 

determined to be non-administrable.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
Exhibit 32.1**SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION**In connection with the Quarterly Report of Payless ShoeSource, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ending July 29, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the “Report”), I, Matthew E. Rubel, Chief Executive Officer and President, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.Date: September 6, 2006       /s/ Matthew E. Rubel         Matthew E. Rubel
Exhibit 7.1

SBS BROADCASTING SA        CALCULATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES

|                                                               |                        | Years ended December 31, |       
|-------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------- | ------------------------ | ------
|
|Loss before income taxes and minority interest                 |                        | (35,216                  | )     
|Add: undistributed earnings of unconsolidated
    subsidiaries |                        | (3,183                   | )     
|                                                               |                        |                          |       
|Total                                                          |                        | (32,033                  | )     
|Fixed charges                                                  |                        |                          |       
|                                                               | Interest expense       |                          | 22,261
|                                                               | 25% of operating lease |                          | 11,857
|                                                               |                        |                          |       
|Total fixed charges                                            |                        | 34,118                   |       
|Total earnings available for payment of fixed
    charges      |                        | *                        |       
|                                                               |                        |                          |       
|Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                             |                        |                          |       
|Expenses under operating leases                                |                        | 47,428                   |       

---

2

---

QuickLinks
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 56 (Thursday, March 23, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 15305]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7172]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------


DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993; Petrotechnical Open Software Corporation

    Notice is hereby given that, on January 17, 1995, pursuant to 
section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 4301, et seq. (``the Act''), Petrotechnical Open 
Software Corporation (``POSC'') has filed written notifications 
simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade 
Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were 
filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the 
recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified 
circumstances. Specifically, the following additional parties have 
become new, non-voting members of POSC: US Geological Survey, Denver, 
CO; Geographix Incorporated, Denver, CO; Convex Computer Corporation, 
Houston, TX; and System Development Inc., Houston, TX.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of POSC.
    On January 14, 1991, POSC filed its original notification pursuant 
to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a 
notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on 
February 7, 1991, (56 FR 5021).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on October 17, 
1994. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act on February 8, 1995 (60 FR 7584).
Constance K. Robinson,
Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 95-7172 Filed 3-22-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-01-M
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-1304

CURLEE SHERMAN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge.

(CA-03-4010-3)

Submitted: June 23, 2004 Decided: July 1, 2004

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Curlee Sherman, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Curlee Sherman seeks to appeal the district court’s order

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. The district

court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge recommended

that relief be denied and advised Sherman that failure to file

timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate

review of a district court order based upon the recommendation.

Despite this warning, Sherman failed to object to the magistrate

judge’s recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate

judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of

the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been

warned that failure to object will waive appellate review. See

Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Sherman has waived appellate

review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice.

Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss

the appeal.

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