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



Certification of the Chief Executive 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 China Marketing Media, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the nine months ended September 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Li Ying Sheng, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 13a-14(b) or 15d-14(b) and 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 and results of operations of the Company.







/s/ Li Ying Sheng

Chief Executive Officer

Date:  November 28, 2005
**Exhibit 31.2**

**CERTIFICATIONS OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIALOFFICER**

I, Sharon C.Kaiser, certify that:

1.             Ihave reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of  Cornerstone Core Properties REIT, Inc.;

2.             Basedon my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement ofa material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements weremade, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;and

3.             Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant asof, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report.

4.             Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

(a)    designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

(b)    evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this reported our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the period covered by this quarterlyreport based on such evaluation; and

(c)    disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

5.             Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

(a)    allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

(b)    anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.
|                          |    /s/ SHARON C. KAISER                 |   |
|--------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Date:  May 11, 2007 | Sharon C. Kaiser                                       |   |
|                     | Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial  Officer) |   |

 

1

----
#### Sonia Pizzuto, Respondent, v Donald Pizzuto, Appellant.

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from stated portions of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Sacks, J.H.O.), dated January 6, 1989, as alleg*444edly failed to accurately incorporate the provisions of a stipulation of settlement entered on the record in open court on May 11, 1988.

Ordered that the appeal from subdivision (g) of the third decretal paragraph of the judgment is dismissed as academic; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is reversed insofar as reviewed, on the law, the seventh and ninth decretal paragraphs and subdivisions (c), (j) and *(l) of*the eleventh decretal paragraph are vacated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Richmond County, for correction of the vacated portions of the judgment so that they shall accurately reflect the provisions of the May 11, 1988, stipulation; and it is further,

Ordered that the appellant is awarded one bill of costs.

The preferred remedy when a party alleges that a judgment does not accurately incorporate the terms of a stipulation is by motion in the trial court for resettlement (CPLR 5019 [a]; *Herpe v Herpe,*225 NY 323, 327) or vacatur (CPLR 5015) of the judgment, rather than by appeal *(see, Leonard v Columbia Steam Nav. Co.,*84 NY 48, 55-56; *Stormville Mountain Homes v Zurhorst,*35 AD2d 562; *cf., Hanlon v Thonsen,*146 AD2d 743; *Blaustein v Blaustein,*145 AD2d 591; *Spinello v Spinello,*129 AD2d 694). However, we have examined the stipulation and judgment and find that in certain respects the latter does not conform to the former. We vacate the provisions of the judgment which, as the parties allege, vary from the stipulation of settlement, and remit the matter to the Supreme Court to make the judgment conform to the stipulation. With regard to subdivision (g) of the third decretal paragraph regarding the defendant’s visitation with the parties’ daughter, we note that the dispute is academic because the daughter has reached the age of majority *(see,*Domestic Relations Law § 2; *Leff v Leff,*144 AD2d 544, 546; *see also, Anastasia v Anastasia,*100 AD2d 740; *Adamec v Adamec,*81 AD2d 600; *Toppel v Toppel,*67 AD2d 628; *Silverman v Silverman,*50 AD2d 824). Thompson, J. P., Brown, Lawrence and Balletta, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5768 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 5768

 To release the reversionary interest of the United States in certain 
   non-Federal land in Salt Lake City, Utah, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 27, 2023

 Mr. Moore of Utah (for himself, Mr. Curtis, and Mr. Owens) introduced 
  the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural 
                               Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To release the reversionary interest of the United States in certain 
   non-Federal land in Salt Lake City, Utah, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``University of Utah Research Park 
Act''.

SEC. 2. RELEASE OF REVERSIONARY INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES IN NON-
              FEDERAL LAND IN SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH.

    (a) Release.--There is released to the University of Utah, without 
consideration, the reversionary interest of the United States in the 
non-Federal land described in subsection (b).
    (b) Description of Non-Federal Land.--The non-Federal land referred 
to in subsection (a) is the approximately 593 acres of land of the 
University of Utah--
            (1) identified in the patent--
                    (A) numbered 43-99-0012; and
                    (B) dated October 18, 1968; and
            (2) more particularly described as tracts D (excluding the 
        parcels numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5), G, and J, T. 1 S., R. 1 
        E., Salt Lake Meridian.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 86 (Thursday, May 2, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19625-19626]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11100]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

DATE AND TIME: Tuesday, May 7, 1996 at 10:00 a.m.

PLACE: 999 E Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

STATUS: This meeting Will Be Closed to the Public.

ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED:

Compliance matters pursuant to 2 U.S.C. Sec. 437g.
Audits conducted pursuant to 2 U.S.C. Sec. 437g, Sec. 438(b), and 
Title 26, U.S.C.
Matters concerning participation in civil actions or proceedings or 
arbitration
Internal personnel rules and procedures or matters affecting a 
particular employee

DATE AND TIME: Thursday, May 9, 1996 at 10:00 a.m.


[[Page 19626]]


PLACE: 999 E Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. (Ninth Floor.)

STATUS: This Meeting Will Be Open to the Public.

ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED:

Correction and Approval of Minutes.
Advisory Opinion 1996-8: Pamela Rochester on behalf of Jefferson 
County Democratic Executive Committee.
Advisory Opinion 1996-10: Bruce E. Lammel on behalf of USX 
Corporation.
Advisory Opinion 1996-11: James Bopp, Jr. on behalf of the National 
Right to Life Conventions, Inc.
Administrative Matters.

PERSON TO CONTACT FOR INFORMATION: Mr. Ron Harris, Press Officer, 
Telephone: (202) 219-4155.
Marjorie W. Emmons,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 96-11100 Filed 4-30-96; 2:21 pm]
BILLING CODE 6715-01-M
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FIEL APPELLEE'S BRIEF 

TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS: 

Appellee, under Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 38.6 (b), respectfully 

requests the Comito extend the time to file Appellee's Brief and would show the 

following: 

1. Larry Wayne Duncan is the Appellant. The State of Texas is the 

Appellee. 

2. Bobby Phillips was appointed to represent Appellant in his appeal. 

3. Lany Wayne Duncan was found guilty of Failure to Stop and Render 

Aid resulting in a death on June 7, 2016. 

4. On January 12, 2017 Attorney Phillips filed a Writ of Habeas Corpus 

requesting leave to file an out-of-time appeal which was granted on 

July 31, 2017. 

5. On August 8, 2017 Attorney Phillips filed a Notice of Appeal. 

6. On October 27, 2017 Attorney Phillips filed Appellant's original 

brief. 

7. On November 13,2017 Attorney Phillips filed a Motion to Amend 

Appellant's Brief Due to Minor Clerical Errors and the Amended 

Brief of Appellant. 

2 
8. Appellee's Brief was then due December 13, 2017. 

9. Since the date Appellant's Response Brief was file, the State's 

appellate attorney has had a very busy caseload, including having 

trials set on December 7, 2017 and other pending appellate matters 

with earlier deadlines. 

10.Further, the State's appellate attorney had a death in the family and 

was out oftown for a funeral on November 11, 2017. 

11.As a result of the above, Appellee was unable to allot the necessary 

time to adequately complete Appellee's Brief. 

12.Therefore, Appellee requests this Honorable Comito grant Appellee 

a thirty (30) day extension of time for the filing of Appellee's Brief. 

13. State's Attorney communicated with Attorney Phillips, attorney for 

Appellee, on December 11, 2017 and he stated that he had no 

objection to State's First Motion for Extension of Time to File 

Appellee's Brief. 

14.This is Appellee's first request for an extension of time to file 

Appellee's Brief in this matter, making this the first request that has 

been made by Appellee. 

3 
15 .Appellee requests this extension of time not for the purpose of delay, 

but so that justice can be done and the matter properly presents to this 

Honorable Court. 

4 

Respectfully Submitted, 

CHRISTINA 

~~ T. WOOD 

Assistant Criminal District Attmney 

San Jacinto County, Texas 

1 State Hwy Rm# 21 

Coldspring, Texas 

TBN:24081271 

Phone: (936) 653-2601 

Fax: (936) 653-2143 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

This is to cettify that on this the 

20 \( , a copy of the above and foregoing instrument was sent by U.S. Mail and via 

facsimile to: 

Bobby Phillips 

Appellate Counsel for Duncan 

419 N. Washington 

Livingston, Texas 77351 

Phone: (936) 327-5619 

Fax: (936) 327-5610 

5 

CHRISTINA 

~~ T. WOOD 

Assistant Criminal District Attorney 

San Jacinto County, Texas 

1 State Hwy Rm# 21 

Coldspring, Texas 

TBN:24081271 

Phone: (936) 653-2601 

Fax: (936) 653-2143
EXHIBIT 13.2

                            CERTIFICATION OF ART LANG
     PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002







<PAGE>


                                  EXHIBIT 13.2

    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECT6ION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Annual Report of IMA Exploration  Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 20-F for the year ending  December 31, 2005,  as filed with the  Securities
and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof the  "Report"),  I, Art Lang,  Chief
Financial  Officer and Director 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:

         (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.

A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and
will be  retained  by the  Company  and  furnished  to the SEC or its staff upon
request.


/s/ ART LANG
------------------------------------------
Art Lang
Chief Financial Officer and Director
**Exhibit
      32.1**





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


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


**AS
      ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Telecomm Sales Network, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended December 31, 2005 as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), each of the undersigned
      J. Lloyd Breedlove, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company and
      Stephen Hoelscher, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
      to
      18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
      of
      2002, to the best of his knowledge that:





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





(b)
      The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and
      for
      the period covered by the Report.








Date:
                February 14, 2006
            By:
                /s/J.
                Lloyd Breedlove
              Name:
                J. Lloyd BreedloveTitle:
                Chief Executive Officer
              (Principal
                Executive Officer)Date:
                February 14, 2006
            By:
                /s/Stephen
                Hoelscher
              Name:
                Stephen HoelscherTitle:
                Chief Financial Officer
              (Principal
                Financial Officer)





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.





This
      certification will not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the
      Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. This
      certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing
      under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the
      Company specifically incorporates it by reference.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

LEON J. NOEL,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D18-3034

[December 13, 2018]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.801 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Geoffrey D. Cohen, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 062014CF011627A88810.

Leon J. Noel, Madison, pro se. 

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GROSS, KLINGENSMITH and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### Linton Campbell et al., Respondents, v City of New York, Appellant.

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Leonard Cohen, J.), entered February 2, 1990, which, in consolidated actions commenced by plaintiffs for a declaration that they are the sole owners of 23 subject real estate parcels, obtained by defendant pursuant to in rem tax foreclosure proceedings, *inter alia,*held in abeyance a determination as to defendant’s motions and plaintiffs’ cross motion for summary judgment regarding six of the subject parcels and severed those actions; granted that part of plaintiffs’ cross motion seeking to strike defendant’s affirma*213tive defense of Statute of Limitations under Administrative Code of the City of New York § 11-412; and further granted that part of plaintiffs’ cross motion insofar as it declared plaintiffs to be the sole owners of 14 of the subject parcels, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of reversing that part of the order which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment to dismiss the claims of the owners of parcels numbered 3, 10, 17, 20, 21 and 22, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Defendant City of New York (the City) claims, and we agree, that with respect to six of the parcels in issue on this appeal, specifically parcel numbers 3, 10, 17, 20, 21 and 22, it gave the owners thereof actual notice of the in rem foreclosure proceedings against them. Consistent with our rationale and holding in *Matter of Tax Foreclosure Action No. 33 (City of New York —Babe Realty)*(141 AD2d 437 [1st Dept 1988], *appeal dismissed*73 NY2d 915), we find that plaintiffs’ bare denial of receipt of the subject foreclosure notices is insufficient to overcome the presumption of regularity of the actual notice given, particularly when juxtaposed with the judgments of foreclosure, which were annexed to the City’s summary judgment motion and included full recitations of the affidavits of mailing. We further note that the City’s answer in the within action contains copies of the pertinent portions of the mailing lists maintained by the Department of Finance, indicating by tax map block and lot the names and addresses of the parties to whom the foreclosure notices were submitted. We are also mindful of the City’s unrebutted assertion that these lists were created contemporaneously with the mailing of the subject notices.

Accordingly, we modify the order of the IAS court, to the extent of granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the claims of the owners of parcels 3, 10, 17, 20, 21 and 22, where the owners, who had filed in rem cards, received actual notice of foreclosure, and otherwise affirm, without costs, for the reasons stated by the IAS court (Leonard Cohen, J.). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Carro, Milonas, Asch and Wallach, JJ.
#### Christopher M. SOLIZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 51503.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

June 11, 1996.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied July 30,1996.

Application to Transfer Denied Sept. 17,1996.

Rosemary E. Pereival, Assistant Appellate Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, Jill C. LaHue, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before EDWIN H. SMITH, P.J., and BRECKENRIDGE and ELLIS, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

Christopher M. Soliz appeals from the denial of a Rule 24.035 motion for postconviction relief.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 17 (Thursday, January 25, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 2269]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-1151]



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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-255, 50-266, 50-301, 50-313, 50-368, 72-5, 72-7, 72-13, 
and 72-1007]


Consumers Power Company, Wisconsin Electric Power Company, and 
Entergy Operations, Inc.; Palisades Plant; Point Beach Nuclear Plant, 
Units 1 and 2; and Arkansas Nuclear One, Units 1 and 2; Receipt of 
Petition for Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206

    Notice is hereby given that by a Petition dated November 17, 1995, 
Fawn Shillinglaw requests that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) 
prohibit the loading of VSC-24 casks at any nuclear site until a 
particular cask at the Palisades Plant, in which indications have been 
detected in a weld, is unloaded and the unloading procedure evaluated.
    As the basis for this request, the Petitioner notes that the NRC 
has determined that the unloading procedures developed by licensees 
have tended to be simplistic in that they fail to account for certain 
contingencies and assumptions and that these types of deficiencies are 
discovered through experience with the casks. She therefore asks that 
no additional casks be loaded until the defective cask at the Palisades 
Plant is unloaded. She also states that certain procedures concerning 
the casks require detailed NRC review and asks that they not be left to 
the licensees to perform without NRC oversight.
    The Petition is being treated pursuant to Section 2.206 of Title 10 
of the Code of Federal Regulations. The Petition has been referred to 
the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR). As 
provided by Section 2.206, appropriate action will be taken on this 
Petition within a reasonable time.
    A copy of the Petition is available for inspection at the 
Commission's Public Document Room at 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, 
DC, and at the local public document rooms for Palisades Plant: Van 
Wylen Library, Hope College, Holland, Michigan; Point Beach Nuclear 
Plant: Joseph Mann Library, 1516 16th Street, Two Rivers, Wisconsin; 
and Arkansas Nuclear One: Tomlinson Library, Arkansas Tech University, 
Russellville, Arkansas.
    Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 18th day of January 1996.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
William T. Russell,
Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 96-1151 Filed 1-24-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
#### JEFFERSON BANK & TRUST COMPANY, Respondent, v. Chi W. CHANG, Appellant.

No. 68588.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.

April 30, 1996.

Edgar Edward Lim, Clayton, for appellant.

James Flores-Quilty, St. Louis, for respondent.

Before SMITH, P.J., and GARY M. GAERTNER and RHODES RUSSELL, JJ.

*142
      *ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Chi W. Chang, appeals the judgment sustaining respondent’s, Jefferson Bank and Trust Company’s, motion for summary judgment on its action for damages from two dishonored checks executed by appellant. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the legal file and find no error of law appears. As an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose, we affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).