alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF 10-K/A REPORT**

**OF**

**CROWNMEDIA HOLDINGS, INC.**

 

**FORTHE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2008**

 

# **1.**               The undersigned is the Chief Financial Officer of Crown Media Holdings, Inc.(“Crown Media Holdings”).  ThisCertification is made pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002.  This Certification accompanies the10-K/A Report of Crown Media Holdings for the year ended December 31,2008.

# ** **

# **2.**               I certify that such 10-K/A Report fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934and that the information contained in such 10-K/A Report fairly presents, inall material respects, the financial condition and results of operations ofCrown Media Holdings.

# ** **

This Certification isexecuted as of April 30, 2009.

 

 
|   | /s/ Brian C.  Stewart                       |
|--------|---------------------------------------------|
|   | Brian C.  Stewart, Executive Vice President |
|   | and Chief Financial Officer                 |

 

----
Order filed June 11, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The

First District of Texas 

___________

NO. 01-14-00054-CR

____________

ALPHONSON DAMON MALONE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Co Crim Ct at Law No 8

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1899612

ORDER
This court has determined, pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 

34.5(f) and 34.6(g)(2), that it must inspect the original of CD of 

State’s/Defendant’s Exhibit 1.

The exhibit clerk of the Co Crim Ct at Law No 8 is directed to deliver to the 

Clerk of this court the original of CD of State’s/Defendant’s Exhibit 1, on or before 

June 18, 2015. The Clerk of this court is directed to receive, maintain, and keep 

safe this original exhibit; to deliver it to the justices of this court for their 

inspection; and, upon completion of inspection, to return the original of CD of 

State’s/Defendant’s Exhibit 1, to the clerk of the Co Crim Ct at Law No 8.

PER CURIAM
**Exhibit32**

**ATLANTICSOUTHERN FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

**For the Six Months Ended June 30,2007**

Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2007fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information contained in such reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

This31st day of July, 2007
| /s/ Mark Stevens        |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| Chief Executive Officer |
|                    |
|                    |
| /s/ Carol Soto          |   |
| Chief Financial Officer |
|                         |        |  |

 

30

----
AGREEMENT



         WHEREAS, The Tirex Corporation (the "Company") and Lawrence Culliford
(the "Consultant") believe it is in their mutual best interest to clarify
certain rights and obligations concerning the Consultant's assistance to the
Company in its efforts to market its technology known as the "TCS Plants"

         IT IS HEREBY AGREED, that

         1.   Consultant shall provide marketing data regarding the European
Countries and shall provide recommendations as to pricing, potential
manufacturing opportunities and other relevant information as required by the
Company.

         2.   The Consultant shall continue to refer potential customers to the
Company and shall consult with the Company regarding marketing techniques and
methods in the European market.

         3.   Consultant shall devote such time as determined by the President
of the Company.

         4.   The Company shall issue 200,000 shares of the Company's Common
Stock to the Consultant for his past efforts and as an incentive for continuing
his to work with and on behalf of the Company.

         5.   Any additional stock issuance, commission, salary or other
compensation to be paid to the consultant shall be negotiated separately when
the parties agree that circumstances are such that it is in the best interest of
the parties to do so.

         6.   The effective date of this Agreement shall be August 28, 2000.

                                             THE TIREX CORPORATION




                                             BY: /s/ LAWRENCE CULLIFORD
                                                -------------------------------
                                                President


                                                -------------------------------
                                                LAWRENCE CULLIFORD

                                       1
#### FRED SMITH LINCOLN MERCURY, INC., Appellant, v. TRUCK INSURANCE EXCHANGE, Respondent.

No. WD 46460.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Feb. 9, 1993.

Clyde G. Meise, Kansas City, for appellant.

Lance LeFevre, Kansas City, for respondent.

Before LOWENSTEIN, C.J., and TURNAGE and HANNA, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The trial court sustained the respondent , insurance company’s motion for summary judgment finding no insurance coverage for appellant’s property loss arising out of *735the sale of three of its vehicles to a third party.

Judgment Affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Ramon Alonso Herrera-Fernandez, 

Defendant.

No. CR-17-01545-PHX-DJH

DETENTION ORDER 

 On December 6, 2018, Defendant appeared before this Court on a petition for 

revocation of supervised release. The issue of detention was submitted to the Court. The 

Court considered the petition and file in determining whether Defendant should be released 

on conditions set by the Court. 

 The Court finds that Defendant, having previously been convicted and placed on 

supervised release, and having appeared before the Court in connection with a petition to 

revoke his supervised release, has failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that 

he is not likely to flee or pose a danger to the safety of the community if released pursuant 

to Rule 46(d), and Rule 32.1(a)(6), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and 18 U.S.C. § 

3143. 

 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant be detained pending further 

proceedings. 

 Dated this 7th day of December, 2018. 

Honorable Eileen S. Willett

United States Magistrate Judge
**Exhibit 32**

 

CERTIFICATIONSPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. §1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Terry G. Roussel and SharonC. Kaiser, do each hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to thebest of his knowledge, the Quarterly Report of Cornerstone Core PropertiesREIT, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the three -month period ended March 31, 2006 fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-Q fairlypresents in all material respects the financial condition and results ofoperations of  Cornerstone CoreProperties REIT, Inc.

 
|                     |  /s/ TERRY G.  ROUSSEL                       |   |
|--------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Date:  May 11, 2006 | Terry G. Roussel                                       |
|                     | Chief Executive Officer  (Principal Executive Officer) |

 

 
|                     | /s/ SHARON C. KAISER                              |   |
|--------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Date:  May 11, 2006 | Sharon C. Kaiser                                       |
|                     | Chief Financial Officer  (Principal Financial Officer) |

 

----
Exhibit 32.1
   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  I, John Karlsson, Chief Executive Officer, and Chief Financial Officer of Asian Dragon Group Inc. (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:
  (1)   The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of the Company for the quarter ended May 31, 2009 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of § 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 as of and for the periods covered in the Report.
 
 
 /s/ John Karlsson
 John Karlsson
 Chief Executive Officer
 Chief Financial Officer
 October 16, 2009
 
 
 A signed original of this written statement required by § 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.
**Exhibit 32**

 

**ATLANTIC SOUTHERNFINANCIAL GROUP, INC.**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED**

**PURSUANTTO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

**For the Three Months Ended March 31, 2010**

 

Eachof the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, thatthis Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31,2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information containedin such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| This  6th day of May, 2010 |   |
|---------------------------------|--------|
|                            |   |
|                            |   |
| /s/  Mark Stevens               |   |
| Chief  Executive Officer        |   |
|                            |   |
|                            |   |
| /s/  Carol Soto                 |   |
| Chief  Financial Officer        |   |

 

1

----
Order filed October 18, 2011.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

_____________

NO. 14-11-00612-CV

______________

JAVIER GONZALEZ, Appellant

V.

CHAMPION TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Appellee

On Appeal from the 151st District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2009-59428

O R D E R

This is an appeal from a judgment signed March 30, 2011. Appellant filed a timely 

motion for new trial. The notice of appeal was due June 28, 2011. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1.

Appellant, however, filed his notice of appeal on July 13, 2011, a date within 15 days of the 

due date for the notice of appeal. A motion for extension of time is Anecessarily implied@

when the perfecting instrument is filed within fifteen days of its due date. Verburgt v. 

Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997). Appellant did not file a motion to extend time to 

file the notice of appeal. While an extension may be implied, appellant is still obligated to 

come forward with a reasonable explanation to support the late filing. See Miller v. 
2

Greenpark Surgery Center Assocs., Ltd., 974 S.W.2d 805, 808 (Tex. App.CHouston [14th 

Dist.] 1998, no pet.). 

Accordingly, we ORDER appellant to file a proper motion to extend time to file the 

notice of appeal on or before 10 days after the date of this order. See Tex. R. App. P.

26.3;10.5(b). If appellant does not comply with this order, we will dismiss the appeal. See 

Tex. R. App. P. 42.3.

PER CURIAM
EXHIBIT 13.1

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







<PAGE>


                                  EXHIBIT 13.1

          CERTIFICATION 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 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, Joseph  Grosso,
President,  Chief  Executive  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/ JOSEPH GROSSO
------------------------------------------------
Joseph Grosso
Chief Executive Officer, President and Director
Present: All the Justices

ANNIE CONNER OPINION BY JUSTICE LEROY R. HASSELL, SR. v. Record No. 951836 June 7, 1996
JAMES M. ROSE
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HENRICO COUNTY James E. Kulp, Judge

Code § 8.01-380(A) contains a limitation which provides that "[a]fter a nonsuit no new proceeding on the same cause of action or against the same party shall be had in any court other than that in which the nonsuit was taken, unless that court is without jurisdiction." In this appeal, we consider whether Code § 8.01- 380(A) permits a plaintiff to nonsuit an action in a general district court and to refile that action in a circuit court, claiming damages in excess of the jurisdiction of the general district court. In 1994, Annie Conner filed an action against James M. Rose in the Richmond City General District Court. Conner alleged in her warrant in debt that she had purchased a home from Rose and that he breached certain warranties that he had made to her. Conner sought damages in the amount of $4,000. On Rose's motion, the action was transferred to the Henrico County General District Court. Subsequently, Conner nonsuited her action in that court and refiled her action in the Circuit Court of Henrico County. Her motion for judgment included causes of action for breach of warranty and fraud in connection with the purchase of the house. She sought compensatory and punitive damages totaling $11,000.Relying upon Code § 8.01-380(A), Rose requested that the circuit court transfer Conner's action to the general district court. Rose argued, and the trial court held, that Code § 8.01- 380(A) requires that Conner refile her action in the general district court because her nonsuit was taken in that court. We awarded Conner an appeal. Conner asserts that Code § 8.01-380(A) permits her to file her action in the circuit court because the ad damnum clause in her motion for judgment exceeds the jurisdictional limit of the general district court and, therefore, the general district court lacks jurisdiction over her action. We agree. The applicable statutory language quoted in Code § 8.01- 380(A) is clear and unambiguous and, therefore, we apply its plain meaning. Barr v. Town & Country Properties, Inc. , 240 Va. 292, 295, 396 S.E.2d 672, 674 (1990). This language permits Conner to refile her action in the circuit court because the ad damnum clause in her motion for judgment exceeds the general district court's jurisdictional limit of $10,000, see Code § 16.1-77. Therefore, the general district court is without jurisdiction to adjudicate her claims. Accordingly, we will reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand this case for further proceedings. Reversed and remanded

.
---

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Harvey Lalach, hereby certifies, pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

| | (a) | the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Anavex Life Sciences
      Corp. for the period ended June 30, 2010 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 Form 10-Q fairly
      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of Anavex Life Sciences Corp.                                              

Date: August 20, 2010

/s/ Harvey Lalach
  Harvey Lalach 
  President, Chief
Financial Officer, Secretary and Director(Principal Executive Officer,
Principal Financial Officer andPrincipal Accounting Officer)



---
#### ABLE INDUSTRIES, INC., d/b/a Emergency Service Company, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Donald R. POHLMAN, Defendant/Appellant.

No. 62980.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Nov. 2, 1993.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Dec. 29, 1993.

Richard J. Keyes and Edward C. Vancil, Edward Vancil & Associates, Clayton, for appellant.

Gary R. Underwood, St. Louis, for respondent.

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

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Defendant, Donald R. Pohlman, appeals the trial court’s denial of his Rule 74.05(c) motion to set aside a default judgment. We affirm. We have reviewed the record and find the claims of error are without merit. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).
United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois  60604

Submitted November 22, 2011*

Decided November 23, 2011

Before

RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge

ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge

DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge

No. 11‐1585

AIRRION BLAKE‐BEY, et al.,

Plaintiffs‐Appellants,

v.

COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS,

Defendant‐Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Northern District of Illinois,

Eastern Division.

No. 10 C 5246

Samuel Der‐Yeghiayan,

Judge.

O R D E R

Airrion Blake‐Bey, Airrion Blake‐Bey II, Anita Blake‐Bey, and Lovie Hunter‐El are

adherents of the Moorish Science Temple of America and were born in Cook County,

Illinois. In this pro se lawsuit, they claim that the county has enslaved them by creating

birth certificates which falsely imply they are Americans rather than citizens of a Moroccan

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

*

After examining the briefs and record, we have concluded that oral argument is

unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and record. See FED. R. APP. P.

34(a)(2)(c).
No. 11‐1585 Page 2

Empire that spans the Western Hemisphere, Africa, and the mythical Atlantis. The plaintiffs

demand varied relief, including $5 billion. The district court dismissed their complaint, and

rightly so because the suit is too frivolous to have invoked the court’s subject‐matter

jurisdiction. See Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536 (1974); In re African‐American Slave

Descendants Lit., 471 F.3d 754, 757 (7th Cir. 2006); Crowley Cutlery Co. v. United States, 849

F.2d 273, 276 (7th Cir. 1988).

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.1

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with this amended Annual Report of VerifyMe, Inc. (the Registrant) on Form 10-K/A for the year ending
December 31, 2014, as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Paul Donfried, Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) of the Registrant, certify to the best of my
knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | 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 and results of operations of the Registrant.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       |  |  |  |     |  |                        
|---------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | -----------------------
|Date: November 4, 2015 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Paul Donfried      
|                       |  |  |  |     |  | Paul Donfried          
|                       |  |  |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 21.1

RASER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES AND

JURISDICTIONS OF INCORPORATION OR ORGANIZATION



|                                           |  |                                           
|------------------------------------------ |  | ------------------------------------------
|SUBSIDIARY                                 |  | JURISDICTION OF INCORPORATION/ORGANIZATION
|Raser Technologies Operating Company, Inc. |  | Utah                                      
|                                           | 
|Thermo No. 1 BE-01, LLC                    |  | Delaware                                  
|                                           | 
|Lightning Dock Geothermal No. 1 HI-01, LLC |  | Delaware                                  

Raser Technologies, Inc. also maintains 19 additional subsidiaries that are not considered to be
significant.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6298

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

TERRANCE DEANDREW BACKUS,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, 

District Judge. (1:08-cr-00128-MR-DLH-3)

Submitted: September 29, 2016 Decided: October 3, 2016

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Terrance Deandrew Backus, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Terrance Backus appeals the district court’s orders denying 

relief on his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for reduction 

of sentence based on amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines for 

drug offenses and denying his motion for reconsideration. We 

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. United States v. Backus, No. 1:08-cr-00128-MR-DLH-3 

(W.D.N.C. Jan. 19, 2016; Feb. 12, 2016). We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED