alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 32.01**

**Section 1350 Certification**

**In connection with this quarterly report of ML WintonFuturesAccess LLC (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September30, 2006 as filed with the Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof(this “Report”), I, Benjamin Weston, Chief Executive Officer and President ofthe Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuantof the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:**

1. This Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

2. The informationcontained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| Date: November 14, 2006                |                |
|----------------------------------------|---------------------|
|                                   |
| By                                     | /s/ BENJAMIN WESTON |   |   |
| Benjamin Weston                        |
| Chief Executive Officer  and President |
| (Principal Executive Officer)          |
|                                        |                     |  |  |  |

 

1

----
# B110532200000000 

1 5t4t Rktft ti 

# TG53.22 

00000000ZE2g011B 

4- '4466. 

19,10 

RI I 

trp 

t(i)hi*f 

0 

4 k 

* MF4t14 

243.8 1 • 10 

If 0
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

ARTURO GODINEZ
, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 15

- 4771

[April 27, 2016 ]

Appeal of order dismissing without prejudice, in part, and denying, in part, rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Jeffrey R. Levenson , Judge; L.T. Case No. 03

- 12101 CF10O

.

Bruce S. Rogow and Tara A. Camp ion of Bruce S. Rogow, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Cynthia L. Comras, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Arturo Godinez appeals the denial of his rule 3. 850 motion for post

conviction relief. The trial court summarily denied two grounds for relief and dismissed one ground without prejudice to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court. In a separate case, we have granted habeas corpus relief on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel and afforded Godinez a new direct appeal. Godinez v. State , N o. 4D15

- 4749 (Fla. 4th DCA Apr. 27, 2016). Our affirmance of the trial court’s order in this case is without prejudice to Godinez’s right to argue the issues raised in his initial brief in his new appeal.

Affirmed.

W ARNER
, G ROSS and C ONNER

, JJ., concur.

* * *2

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### Charles VERNOR, Movant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 63450.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Nov. 2, 1993.

Susan K. Eckles, St. Louis, for movant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., John M. Morris, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before CRANDALL, P.J., and REINHARD and CRIST, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Charles Vernor, appeals from the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion after an evidentiary hearing. The judgment of conviction sought to be vacated was for burglary in the second degree for which movant was sentenced to imprisonment for seven years as a class X offender.

The judgment of the motion court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous; no error of law appears. An opinion would have no precedential value.

The judgment of the motion court is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
#### Paul A. ALEXANDER Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 49053.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

June 27, 1995.

Laura G. Martin, Asst. Appellate Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Fernando Bermudez, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before ULRICH, P.J., and LOWENSTEIN and ELLIS, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Movant sought to set aside guilty plea to numerous counts of assault, robbery and armed criminal action, where other counts were dismissed. His Rule 24.035 motion was denied without evidentiary hearing, where he alleged he was to be incarcerated in a place other than that of his actual confinement. Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
**Exhibit 32.2**

**Certification of the 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 Quarterly Report of WMG Acquisition Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2008 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Steven Macri, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities 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. 

Dated: February 5, 2009 

 

 

56
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

May 7, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-6465

OK International, Inc:

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/Notice_of_Product_Exclusions

_05.09.19.pdf. 

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs products covered by a specially drafted description contained in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

May 7, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-5830

Magna Electronics: 

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/Notice_of_Product_Exclusions

_05.09.19.pdf. 

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs products covered by a specially drafted description contained in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
#### Giovanni Antonio NARGI, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 0548-95.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc.

May 15, 1996.

R. Scott Shearer, Houston, for appellant.

Rikke Burke Graber, Asst. Dist. Atty., Houston and Robert A. Huttash, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

*181
      *OPINION ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW*

McCORMICK, Presiding Judge.

A jury convicted appellant of driving while intoxicated. The Court of Appeals affirmed appellant’s conviction. *Nargi v. State,*895 S.W.2d 820 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1995). We granted appellant’s petition for discretionary review to address the Court of Appeals’ holding that, under the facts of this case, an officer’s handcuffing of appellant “to gain control” during an investigatory stop did not elevate the detention to an arrest. See *Nargi,*895 S.W.2d at 823.

We now find that our decision to grant appellant’s petition for discretionary review was improvident. Tex.RApp.Pro. 202(k). Appellant’s petition for discretionary review is dismissed.

CLINTON, J., dissents.

BAIRD, Judge,

dissenting on Appellant’s Petition for Discretionary Review.

Appellant was convicted of driving while intoxicated and the Court of Appeals affirmed. *Nargi v. State,*895 S.W.2d 820 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1995). We granted review to determine whether the Court of Appeals correctly classified appellant’s seizure as an investigatory stop rather than an arrest.

For the reasons stated in *Francis v. State,*922 S.W.2d 176 (Tex.Cr.App. No. 628-95, delivered this day) (Baird, J., concurring and dissenting), I believe this case should be remanded to the Court of Appeals to determine whether, given the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable person in appellant’s position would believe his/her seizure was to be brief. *Id.,*922 S.W.2d at 179. Consequently, I dissent to the dismissal of appellant’s petition for discretionary review.

OVERSTREET, J., joins this opinion.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 73 (Monday, April 17, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 19284]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-9338]



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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service


Delaware and Lehigh Navigation Canal National Heritage Corridor 
Commission; Meeting

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces an upcoming meeting of the Delaware and 
Lehigh Navigation Canal National Heritage Corridor Commission. Notice 
of this meeting is required under the Federal Advisory Committee Act 
(Public Law 92-463).

MEETING DATE AND TIME: Wednesday, April 19, 1995; 1:30 p.m. until 4:30 
p.m.

ADDRESSES: Aldie Mansion, 85 Old Dublin Pike, Doylestown, PA 18901.

    The agenda for the meeting will focus on implementation of the 
Management Action Plan for the Delaware and Lehigh Canal National 
Heritage Corridor and State Heritage Park. The Commission was 
established to assist the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and its 
political subdivisions in planning and implementing an integrated 
strategy for protecting and promoting cultural, historic and natural 
resources. The Commission reports to the Secretary of the Interior and 
to Congress.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Delaware and Lehigh Navigation Canal 
National Heritage Corridor Commission was established by Public Law 
100-692, November 18, 1988.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Acting Executive Director, Delaware and Lehigh Navigation Canal 
National Heritage Corridor Commission, 10 E. Church Street, Room P-208, 
Bethlehem, PA 18018, (610) 861-9345.

    Dated: April 6, 1995.
Donald M. Bernhard,
Chairman, Delaware and Lehigh Navigation Canal NHC Commission.
[FR Doc. 95-9338 Filed 4-14-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-M
----

----

FedFirst 10-Q

|   | (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 13, 2009 |   | /s/ Robert C. Barry Jr.                                   |
|--------|------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                   |   | Robert C. Barry Jr.                                       |
|   |                   |   | Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President |
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Ronald KENNELL, Appellant.

No. 68065.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

April 2, 1996.

*283Douglas R. Hoff, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, Kurt U. Schaefer, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, for respondent.

KAROHL, Judge.

Defendant appeals conviction and sentence on two charges of possession of a controlled substance, one was heroin, the other cocaine. The court imposed a ten year sentence to be served consecutively with a two year sentence. The sufficiency of the evidence is not at issue.

Defendant’s only claim of error is the court failed to quash two of the state’s preemptory strikes because the explanations for striking two venirepersons were pretextuai. After defendant made a timely motion the prosecutor offered race neutral explanations accepted by the court for both venirepersons. Defendant made no effort to demonstrate in what manner the prosecutor’s explanations were pretextuai. Thus, defendant failed to meet his burden to “show that the prosecutor’s proffered reasons are merely pretextuai and that the true motivation for the strike was racial.” *State v. Parker,*836 S.W.2d 930, 934 (Mo. banc 1992). Accordingly, this claim of error fails. Moreover, we have examined the prosecutor’s explanations and find they are supported by the voir dire proceeding.

We affirm.

REINHARD, P.J., and GRIMM, J., concur.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDG MENT

No. 04

- 22

- 00385

- CR

Jose Andres ROMERO

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 216th Judicial District Court

, Gillespie County, Texas

Trial Court No. 7973

Honorable Albert D. Pattillo, III , Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE WATKINS

, JUSTICE RODRIGUEZ , AND JUSTICE VALENZUELA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED.

SIGNED October 19, 2022.

_________________________________ Beth Watkins , Justice
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

October 31, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

131320 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 131320 

 COA: 265466 

Genesee CC: 03-011303-FC 

TOM TRAINI,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 11, 2006 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

s1023 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

October 31, 2006 

 Clerk
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 81 (Thursday, April 25, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 18409]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10217]



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


DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993; Auto Body Consortium, Inc., Intelligent 
Resistance Welding Joint Venture

    Notice is hereby given that, on December 26, 1995, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Auto Body Consortium, Inc. 
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, American 
Iron and Steel Institute, Washington, DC; Battelle, Columbus, OH; and 
Lobdell-Emery, Alma, MI have become members of the Joint Venture. 
Additionally, the following companies have withdrawn their membership 
from the Joint Venture: Alcoa, Alcoa Center, PA; Bethlehem Steel Corp., 
Southfield, MI; Computer Integrated Welding, Auburn Hills, MI; Detroit 
Center Tool, Detroit, MI; and Grossel Tool Company, Fraser, MI.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activities of the Joint Venture. Membership remains open, and the 
Consortium intends to file additional written notification disclosing 
any changes in membership.
    On September 8, 1995, the Auto Body Consortium 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 December 6, 1995 (60 FR 62476). An additional 
notification was filed on September 22, 1995 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 April 12, 1996 (61 FR 
16267).
Constance K. Robinson,
Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 96-10217 Filed 4-24-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-01-M
Exhibit 32.1

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

The undersigned, Remy Kozak, the Chief Executive Officer of Power Air Corporation, and Donald M. Prest, the Chief Financial Officer of Power Air Corporation, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to their knowledge, the Report on Form 10-QSB of Power Air Corporation, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2006, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained in the Report on Form 10-QSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Power Air Corporation.

Date:  August 14, 2006.

| | /s/"Remy Kozak"
__________________________________                                            
| | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | Remy Kozak 
President, Chief Executive Officer, Principal Executive Officer and a director    
| | /s/"Donald M. Prest"
__________________________________                                       
| | Donald M. Prest
Secretary, Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signatures that appear in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Power Air Corporation and will be retained by Power Air Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jesus Costello, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Thomas B. Galligan, J.), rendered October 21, 1988, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the second degree and possession of burglar’s tools and sentencing him as a predicate violent felony offender to concurrent indeterminate terms of imprisonment of 4 to 8 years and one year, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

After enjoying his customary midday break by listening to his radio/cassette player at his new Washington Heights apartment, complainant, a livery cab driver, left the apartment and prepared his cab for his afternoon rounds. He picked up a fare (defendant) two blocks away from his apartment and realized that defendant had possession of his radio/ cassette player which he had just left on his kitchen table. Complainant flagged down passing police patrolmen who chased the fleeing defendant and recovered a wristwatch, also identified by the driver as having been taken from his apartment. In a body search at the precinct, the police recovered one of a tandem of tools generally used for picking locks. A police lock expert testified that the companion device, which was not recovered, could have been substituted with a paper clip or bobby pin, innocuous items which could easily have been disposed of without notice.

Defendant has failed to overcome the presumption of burglary created by his recent, exclusive and unexplained possession of stolen property *(People v Pittman,*125 AD2d 342, *Iv denied*69 NY2d 749). The facts are inconsistent with defen*277dant’s suggestion that he was a mere possessor of stolen property *(People v Green,*128 AD2d 890). In the absence of evidence that someone else may have committed the burglary, an inference of defendant’s guilt was reasonably supported *(People v Slater,*115 AD2d 672, *Iv denied*67 NY2d 657; *cf., People v Baskerville,*60 NY2d 374). Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Kassal and Smith, JJ.
EXHIBIT
32.1




CERTIFICATION
OF OFFICERS


OF
BIO-BRIDGE SCIENCE, INC.


PURSUANT
TO 18 USC ss. 1350





I, Liang
Qiao, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(a) The
quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009 of
Bio-Bridge Science, Inc. (the "Company"), fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and





(b)
Information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.




Date:November 16,
      2009
            /s/ Dr. Liang
      QiaoBy:
      Dr. Liang QiaoChief
      Executive Officer




I, Chuen
Huei (Kevin) Lee, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(c) The
quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009 of
Bio-Bridge Science, Inc. (the "Company") fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(d)
Information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.




Date:November 16,
      2009
            /s/ Chuen Huei (Kevin)
      LeeBy:
      Chuen Huei (Kevin) LeeChief
      Financial Officer andPrincipal
      Accounting Officer