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



<PAGE>


     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Learningwire.com (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), Stephen K. Smith, the President and
Chief Executive Officer and Michael Grove the Principal Financial and Accounting
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of
their 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 the Company.


                                          KRANEM CORPORATION
                                          d/b/a
                                          LEARNINGWIRE.COM



April 27, 2008                            By: /s/ Stephen K. Smith
                                              ---------------------------------
                                              Stephen K. Smith, President and
                                              Chief Executive Officer


April 29, 2008                            By: /s/ Michael Grove
                                              -------------------------------
                                              Michael Grove, Principal
                                              Financial and Accounting Officer
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

March 15, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-6037

Aisin World Corp. of America:

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,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
#### Ross D. PRIMM, Appellant, v. Kathleen L. PRIMM, Respondent.

No. WD 47232.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Oct. 5, 1993.

Pamela Lambert, Columbia, for appellant.

Francis Cline, Jr., Columbia, for respondent.

Sara A. Miller, guardian ad litem.

Before SPINDEN, P.J., and FENNER and HANNA, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the trial court’s determination of a changed circumstance concerning the litigants’ custody of their two children. The trial court’s modification of its custody order to give Kathleen Primm full legal custody with visitation rights to Ross Primm is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 50476
C Y N T H IAZ A M O R A , P la in tiff

–A p p e lle e , v. S W IF T T R A N S P O R T A T IO N C O R P O R A T IO N , D e fe n d a n t–A p p e lla n t.
N o. 08- 50546
CARL OS CAS TA NEDA, P l ai n t i f f –A pp el l ee, v. S W I F T T RA NS P OR T AT I ON C OR P OR AT I ON, D efen d a n t–A p p ell a n t.
N o. 08- 50631
AL BERT Z AM ORA, P l ai n t i f f –A pp el l ee, v. S W I F T T RA NS P OR T AT I ON C OR P OR AT I ON, United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D April 3, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN os . 08- 50476, 08- 50546, 08- 50631

Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that thi s opinio n shoul d not * be pub lish ed and is not precedent except under the limit ed circu mstance s set forthin5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. See J.M. Davidso n, I

nc. v. Web ster , 1 2 8S .W .3 d 2 2 3 , 2 3 0&n .2(T ex . 2 0 0 3). 1 2 D efen d a n t–A p p ell a n t.

A pp eal s f

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f ort he W es t er n D i st r i c tof Texas U SD C N os . 3: 07- C V
- 452 , 3: 07- C V
- 369, and 3: 07- C V
- 400
B ef ore G A R W O O D , O W E N , an d H AY N E S , C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R I A M: * Sw if tTr ans po r t at i o n Cor po rat i on ( S w i f t) app eal s t h e den i al s o f it s m o t i o ns t o c o m pe l arbi t r at i o n i n t hr e e s e pa r at e c as e s br o ugh t ag ai ns t i t by f orm er em pl oyees. Th e cases bel ow c a m e b e fore t h ree di f ferent di st ri ctcourtj u dg es, eac h of w hom c or r ec t l y co ncl uded thatthe r es pec t ive arbi t r at i on agre em ent s at i s s ue w e r e i l l us o r y be c aus e Sw i f tr e s erved t h e ri ghtt o r e vo ke o rm o di f y t he agreem en t s ata n y t i m e w i t h ou tn ot i ce. A ccor di n gl y, S w i f t ’ s m ot i on s t o com pel 1 a r b i t r a t i o n we r e a p p r o p r i a t e l yd e n i e d
. A F F I RMED.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Edward Jackson, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer, J.), rendered July 14, 1988, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

On August 7, 1987, at approximately 4:00 p.m., two police officers, who were in an unmarked vehicle in the vicinity of Lafayette and Franklin Avenues in Brooklyn, observed the defendant display an automatic weapon to another individual, who was sitting on a motorcycle that had stopped alongside of the vehicle in which the defendant was a passenger. The officers attempted to approach; however, the vehicle in which the defendant was seated sped away. The officers pursued the car, which eventually came to a stop. The defendant and the driver of the vehicle exited the car and fled. The defendant was ultimately apprehended and the weapon, which he had tossed into the front of the car, was retrieved by the police.

Although the defendant, on appeal, challenges the credibility of the arresting officers, it is well settled that resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses *(see, People v Gaimari,*176 NY 84, 94). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed *553unless clearly unsupported by the record *(see, People v Garafolo,*44 AD2d 86, 88). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15 [5]).

We further find that the trial court correctly instructed the jury with respect to the question of whether the police were "interested witnesses” *(see, People v Agosto,*73 NY2d 963; *People v Simpson,*99 AD2d 555; *People v Gadsden,*80 AD2d 508).

We have examined the defendant’s remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Brown, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with Amendment No. 1 onForm 10-K/A to the Annual Report of Mothers Work, Inc. (the“Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ending September 30, 2004 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I, Dan W. Matthias, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

       (1)   TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

       (2)   Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| /s/                                             |  DAN  W. MATTHIAS |   |
|-------------------------------------------------|------------------------|--------|
|                                            | Dan W. Matthias   |   |
| *Chief Executive Officer*  October 4, 2005 |                   |

 

----
Exhibit 10.30



 Exhibit 10.30 

TERMINATION OF DEFERRED SUPPLEMENTAL 

COMPENSATION AGREEMENT WITH 

SIMON HOUNSLOW

This Termination of Deferred Supplemental Compensation Agreement made this
31st day of March, 2010, between the BANK OF THE
COMMONWEALTH, a Virginia banking corporation, Norfolk, Virginia (hereinafter called the “Bank”) and SIMON HOUNSLOW (hereinafter called “Employee”). 

WHEREAS, Employee is an employee of the Bank and is a party to a Deferred Supplemental Compensation Agreement (which may have been
amended and/or restated on one or more occasions) between Employee and Bank (hereinafter called “Deferred Compensation Agreement”); and 

WHEREAS, Employee and Bank have mutually agreed to terminate the Deferred Compensation Agreement in recognition of the Bank’s desire
to obtain additional capital, the Employee’s desire to continue employment, and in recognition of the Bank’s desire to terminate the economic liability associated with deferred compensation arrangements involving all employees who are not
in payment status under said agreements. 
 THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which
is hereby acknowledged, (1) the Deferred Compensation Agreement is hereby terminated by mutual consent of the Bank and the Employee; (2) no payment or economic benefit of any kind shall be paid by the Bank to the Employee; (3) any
Bank assets associated with the Deferred Compensation Agreement, including, but not limited to, policies of life insurance, remain the property of the Bank; and (4) the Bank and the Employee hereby release each other of any claims which have
arisen from or may in the future arise from the entry of the Deferred Compensation Agreement and the termination of said Deferred Compensation Agreement, all effective on the date first written above. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Termination of Preferred Supplemental Compensation Agreement on the date first written
above. 
  

									
	BANK OF THE COMMONWEALTH	 		 	EMPLOYEE:
					
	By:	 	/s/    Cynthia A. Sabol	 		 	By:	 	/s/    Simon Hounslow
	Its:	 	Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer	 		 		 	SIMON HOUNSLOW
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 75 (Wednesday, April 19, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 19561]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-9629]



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


FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 95-44, RM-8602]


Radio Broadcasting Services; Fair Bluff, NC

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission requests comments on a petition filed by 
Atlantic Broadcasting Co., Inc., licensee of Station WDAR-FM, Channel 
288C3, Darlington, South Carolina, requesting the deletion of vacant 
and unapplied-for Channel 287A at Fair Bluff, NC. In the alternative, 
petitioner requests that Channel 287A at Fair Bluff be site restricted 
12.7 kilometers (7.9 miles) northeast, at coordinates 34-21-22 North 
Latitude and 78-54-36 West Longitude. The deletion or site restriction 
of the Fair Bluff channel could enable Station WDAR-FM to improve its 
coverage area by operating omnidirectionally.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or before June 5, 1995, and reply 
comments on or before June 20, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, Washington, D.C. 20554. 
In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should 
serve the petitioner, or its counsel or consultant, as follows: Gary S. 
Smithwick, Esq., Smithwick & Belendiuk, P.C., 1990 M Street, NW, Suite 
510, Washington, D.C. 20036 (Counsel to petitioner).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leslie K. Shapiro, Mass Media Bureau, 
(202) 418-2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 95-44, adopted April 6, 
1995, and released April 14, 1995. The full text of this Commission 
decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business 
hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, NW, 
Washington, D.C. The complete text of this decision may also be 
purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International 
Transcription Services, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 2100 M Street, NW, Suite 
140, Washington, D.C. 20037.
    Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply 
to this proceeding.
    Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of 
Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to 
Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are 
prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve 
channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing 
permissible ex parte contacts.
    For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, 
see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Radio broadcasting.

Federal Communications Commission.
John A Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media 
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 95-9629 Filed 4-18-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-F
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Darren Staton, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Kings County (G. Aronin, J.), both rendered June 9, 1987, convicting him under indictment No. 5021/85 of attempted robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and convicting him under indictment No. 2792/86 of burglary in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentences. The appeal under indictment No. 5021/85 brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress statements made to law enforcement officials.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

The defendant contends that his videotaped statement, made to an Assistant District Attorney after having been advised of and having waived his *Miranda*rights *(see, Miranda v Arizona,*384 US 436), should have been suppressed because it was part of a continuous interrogation which began hours earlier when he allegedly made a statement to law enforcement officials before having waived his *Miranda*rights *(see generally, People v Chapple,*38 NY2d 112). This contention is unpreserved for appellate review *(see, People v Kern,*149 AD2d 187, 219, *affd*75 NY2d 638), and we decline to reach it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.

Similarly unpreserved for appellate review are the defendant’s contentions regarding the court’s charge to the jury *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Thomas,*50 NY2d 467), and, under the circumstances, reversal in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction on those grounds is also unwarranted. Thompson, J. P., Brown, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**






STATEMENT
      REQUIRED BY 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 on Form 10-QSB of Axiom III, Inc (the
      "Company") for the three months and nine months ended September 30, 2006, as
      filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
      "Report"), I, Lawrence M. Nault, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
      Officer of the Company, certify that:




*
      the
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




*
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.









/s/
      Lawrence M. Nault


Lawrence
      M. Nault


President,
      Chief Executive Officer,


Chief
      Financial Officer, Comptroller





November
      9, 2006







This
      certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 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 Company for purposes of
      Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
#### Scipio LOVE, Appellant, v. Rebecca S. JACKSON, Respondent.

No. WD 49026.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Nov. 8, 1994.

Henri J. Watson and James M. Dowd, Kansas City, for appellant.

F. Patrick Fryer, Kansas City, for respondent.

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

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

Appeal from judgment entered on jury verdict in favor of defendant Rebecca S. Jackson in plaintiff Scipio Love’s action against her for personal injuries resulting from an automobile accident.

The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
|                                       |                                             |                            |
|--------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------|
|                                       | **FREESTAR              TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION** |
|                                  |                                        |                       |
| Date: September              29, 2006 | By:                                    | /s/ Paul              Egan |
|                                       | Paul              Egan                           |
|                                       | President/Chief              Executive Officer   |

|                                       |                                   |                              |
|--------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|
|                                       |                                   |
|                                  |                              |                         |
| Date: September              29, 2006 | By:                          | /s/ Ciaran              Egan |
|                                       | Ciaran              Egan               |
|                                       | Chief                Financial Officer |
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, W. Bruce Johnson, Interim Chief Executive Officer and President of Sears Holdings Corporation (the
Company) and J. Miles Reidy, Executive Vice President and 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 May 3, 2008 (the Report).

Each of the undersigned hereby certifies 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 and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

May 30, 2008



|                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------
|/s/ W. Bruce Johnson                                
|W. Bruce Johnson                                    
|Interim Chief Executive Officer and President       
|                                                    
|/s/ J. Miles Reidy                                  
|J. Miles Reidy                                      
|Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
#### SCHNUCK MARKETS, INC., Appellant, v. Rick D. PULLER, Respondent.

No. 63124.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Nov. 9, 1993.

*434Bill T. Walker, Granite City, IL, for appellant.

Jerome T. Bollato, Clayton, for respondent.

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

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Schnucks appeals the trial court’s ruling denying its claim for unjust enrichment against Puller for $7,632. We affirm.

We find the trial court’s judgment is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. Rule 84.16(b)(1). Further, we find no error of law appears. Rule 84.16(b)(5).

Further, we find an opinion in this case would have no precedential value and affirm by "written order. A memorandum for the parties’ use only has been prepared.
cellynx_10q-ex1032.htm


 







EXHIBIT 10.32





 



CLIENT SERVICE AGREEMENT


 


AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") made as of the 1st day of September, 2009 by and between. CelLynx Group ("the Client") and SeaHawk Capital Partners, Inc ("SCP").


 


WITNESSETH THAT:


 


WHEREAS, SCP is a, financial advisory and consulting firm specializing in assisting publicly traded companies implement strategies to access capital, build shareholder value and increase investor awareness.


 


WHEREAS, the Client is publicly held, with their common stock trading on one or more stock exchanges and/or "over the counter", and


 


WHEREAS, the Client desires to publicize themselves with the intention of making their name and business better known to high net worth investors, investment funds, brokerage houses and industry professionals, and


 


WHEREAS, SCP is willing to accept the Client as a client.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained, it is agreed:


 


Engagement. The Client hereby engages SCP, commencing September 1, 2009 to perform strategic consulting service and corporate advisory services.


 



  Corporate Advisory Services. SCP will provide capital introduction services, as well strategic alliance introductions.




 


Compensation and Expenses. In consideration of the services to be performed by SCP in connection with the services provided, and as may otherwise be herein provided, the Client agrees to pay SCP the following compensation:


 



  1) Capital Introduction - 8% cash fee and 8% in $0.10 warrants for money introduced and accepted by the company.




 




  





1











  






 


Confidentiality. Until such time as the same may become publicly known, SCP agrees that any information provided to it by Client of a confidential nature will not be revealed or disclosed to any person or entity for any reason, and upon completion of its services and upon the written request of the Client, any original documentation provided by the Client will be returned to it


 


Executed as a sealed instrument as of September 1, 2009.


 


SeaHawk Capital Partners, Inc.


 



	
By: /s/ Daniel Ash            

	  	
By: /s/ Joseph Moscato      


	
CelLynx Group.

	  	
Seahawk Capital Partners, Inc.


	
Duly Authorized

	  	
Duly Authorized












 




  





2