alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT32

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO

18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Inconnection with the Annual Report of Rub Investments Limited (the "Company")on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2003, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),I, Anthony N. DeMint, President and Chief Accounting 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:

 

-  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or        15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; andThe information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material        respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the        Company.
/s/Anthony N.DeMint                            

AnthonyN. DeMint

Presidentand Chief Accounting Officer

February6, 2004
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-21045 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee

v. GUSTAVO CARBAJAL, also known as Gustavo Carbajal Gomez

Defendant - Appellant

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-98-CR-390-5

-------------------- November 3, 2000 Before KING, Chief Judge, and SMITH and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Gustavo Carbajal appeals the sentence imposed by the district court following his jury trial conviction for conspiracy to transport and harbor undocumented aliens. We review the district court’s application of the Sentencing Guidelines de

novo , and we review its factual findings for clear error. United States v. Edwards , 65 F.3d 430, 432 (5th Cir. 1995). Carbajal argues that the district court clearly erred in increasing his base offense level by nine points based on itsNo. 99-21045 -2- factual finding that Carbajal was accountable for smuggling, transporting, or harboring more than 100 aliens. See U.S.S.G. § 2L1.1(b)(2)(C). Because this finding is plausible in light of the record read as a whole, the district court did not commit any error, clear or otherwise. United States v. Watson , 966 F.2d 161, 162 (5th Cir. 1992). The judgment of the district court imposing sentence is
AFFIRMED.
H. Res. 432 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

May 13, 2009. 

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution, the 

House shall be considered to have: (1) passed the bill (H.R. 

2101) to promote reform and independence in the oversight 

of weapons system acquisition by the Department of Defense, 

as amended by the committee amendment in the nature of a 

substitute recommended by the Committee on Armed Services 

now printed in the bill; (2) taken from the Speaker’s table 

S. 454; (3) adopted an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of H.R. 2101 as passed by the 

House pursuant to this resolution; (4) passed such bill, as 

amended; and (5) insisted on its amendment and requested 

a conference with the Senate thereon. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

 

I Jason Macari, certifythat:

 

1.     I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1to Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of Summer Infant, Inc.

 

2.     Based on my knowledge, this quarterlyreport does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which statements were made, not misleading with respect tothe period covered by this report.

 

3.     Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material aspects the financial conditions, results of operationsand cash flows of the issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport.

 

4.     The issuer’s other certifying officersand I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e))and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and15d-15(f)) for the issuer and have:

 

a)     Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theissuer is made known to us by others within the company, particularly duringthe period in which this report is being prepared;

 

b)    Designed such internal control overfinancial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reportingto be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regardingthe reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financialstatements for external purposes in accordance with generally acceptedaccounting principles;

 

c)     Evaluated the effectiveness of the issuer’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

d)    Disclosed in this report any change inthe issuer’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theissuer’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the internal control over financialreporting.

 

5.     The issuer’s other certifying officersand I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the issuer’s auditors and the audit committee ofthe board of directors:

 

a)     All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the issuer’s abilityto record, process, summarize and report financial information, and;

 

b)    Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theissuer’s internal control over financial reporting.

 
| /s/ Jason Macari | August 18,  2009 |
|------------------|-----------------------|
| Jason Macari     |                  |

 

----
#### Derrick D. HUMPHREY, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 40501.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Aug. 8, 1989.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Oct. 3, 1989.

Application to Transfer Denied Nov. 14, 1989.

John E. Cash, Kansas City, for appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Robert V. Franson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before FENNER, P.J., and SHANGLER and BERREY, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from a denial of a Rule 27.26 motion to set aside a conviction for possession of a weapon upon the premises of a correctional institution, in violation of § 217.360.1(4), RSMo Supp.1984.

Judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
#### James PETERSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 67646.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

June 30, 1995.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Aug. 14, 1995.

Application to Transfer Denied Sept. 19, 1995.

Dave Hemingway, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Cheryl A. Caponegro, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before REINHARD, P.J., CARL R. GAERTNER, J. and GRIMM, C.J.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, James Peterson, appeals from an order entered in the Circuit Court of the County of St. Louis dismissing his Rule 24.035 as untimely. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the legal file and find the judgment of the motion court is not clearly erroneous. As we further find an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose, we affirm the motion court’s order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 90 (Wednesday, May 8, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 20836]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11507]



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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
[TA-W-31,485]


Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Worker 
Adjustment Assistance; Quantum Corporation High Capacity Storage Group, 
Colorado Springs, Colorado; including workers employed through T.S.I. 
Temporary Agency, Colorado Springs, Colorado

    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 
2273) the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to 
Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on November 22, 1995, applicable 
to all workers of Quantum Corporation, High Capacity Storage Group 
located in Colorado Springs, Colorado. The certification covered 
temporary workers leased to Quantum through various agencies in 
Colorado Springs. The notice was published in the Federal Register on 
December 12, 1995 (60 FR 63732).
    At the request of the State Agency, the Department reviewed the 
certification for workers of the subject firm. The Agency reports that 
workers of T.S.I. Temporary Agency, Colorado Springs, Colorado, were 
inadvertently excluded from the certification.
    The intent of the Department's certification is to include all 
workers of Quantum who were adversely affected by imports. Accordingly, 
the Department is amending the certification to include workers of 
T.S.I. Temporary Agency.
    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-31,485 is hereby issued as 
follows:

    All workers of Quantum Corporation, High Capacity Storage Group, 
and workers of T.S.I. Temporary Agency, contracted by Quantum 
Corporation, Colorado Springs, Colorado who became totally or 
partially separated from employment on or after September 19, 1994, 
are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of 
the Trade Act of 1974.

    Signed at Washington, D.C. this 27th day of April 1996.
Russell T. Kile,
Acting Program Manager, Policy and Reemployment Services, Office of 
Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 96-11507 Filed 5-7-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
Exhibit 13.2


                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

         In connection with the accompanying Annual Report on Form 20-F of
Rediff.com India Limited for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2006 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Joy
Basu, Chief Financial Officer of Rediff.com India Limited, hereby certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my 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 represents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of Rediff.com India Limited.


Date:  September 29, 2006                           /s/ Joy Basu
                                                     ------------------
                                                     Joy Basu
                                                     Chief Financial Officer


         A signed original of this written statement required by ss.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.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 96-60308

Summary Calendar

__________________

ROMAIN P. WILSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JOHN H. DALTON, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY,

Defendant-Appellee.

______________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Southern District of Mississippi

(1:93-CV-621-GR)

______________________________________________

February 14, 1997

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Romain P. Wilson appeals from a summary judgment of the

district court which denied her claim based on Title VII of the

Civil Rights Act of 1964. We affirm.

It is undisputed that Wilson did not file her complaint in the

district court until nearly two years after she received notice
2

concerning the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s final

decision denying her relief and informing her of her right to file

suit within ninety (90) calendar days. On appeal, Wilson relies on

a number of matters that she claims should estop the district court

from granting summary judgment or that should equitably toll the

ninety-day limitation period. Her arguments are not meritorious.

Moreover, we will not consider them on appeal as such arguments

were not advanced in the district court in response to the

Secretary’s motion for summary judgment. The district court

correctly granted summary judgment on the issues before it, and

accordingly the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 98 (Monday, May 20, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 25238]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12561]



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


DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Mississippi River Corridor Study Commission

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior Department.

ACTION: Notice of final meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice sets the schedule for the forthcoming final 
meeting of the Mississippi River Corridor Study Commission. Notice of 
this meeting is required under the Federal Advisory Committee Act 
(Public Law 92-463).

MEETING DATE, TIME, and ADDRESS: Monday, May 20, 1996; 2 p.m. to 6 
p.m., Old State Capital, 100 North Boulevard at River Road, Baton 
Rouge, Louisiana. This meeting will be open to the public. Space and 
facilities to accommodate members of the public are limited and persons 
accommodated on a first-come, first-served basis. As this is the final 
meeting, there are no agenda items, only approval of the previous 
meeting minutes. The report will be signed by each commission member 
and distribution will be made to the President of the United States, 
the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the President of the 
Senate and the Governors of each of the following states: Arkansas, 
Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, 
Tennessee, and Wisconsin.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alan M. Hutchings, Assistant Field 
Director, Planning, Legislation, and WASO Coordination, National Park 
Service, Midwest Field Area, 1709 Jackson Street, Omaha, Nebraska 
68102, or call 402-221-3082.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Mississippi River Corridor Study 
Commission was established by Public Law 101-398, September 29, 1990. 
This commission will expire 90 days after submitting the final report.

    Dated: May 7, 1996.
William W. Schenk,
Field Director, Midwest Field Area.
[FR Doc. 96-12561 Filed 5-17-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-P
##### 



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
  (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/ James G. AzleinBy:
    James G. AzleinTitle:
    President and Chief Executive Officer/s/ Randy L. ElkinsBy:
    Randy L. ElkinsTitle:
    Controller and Acting Chief Financial Officer
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Christina N. BRUCE, Appellant.

No. WD 50828.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Jan. 30, 1996.

Rose M. Wibbenmeyer, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

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

Before SPINDEN, P.J., and BERREY and LAURA DENVIR STITH, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

ORDER

Appeal from jury conviction of possession of a controlled substance, § 195.202 RSMo Cum.Supp., 1993.

Affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).
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 the Annual Report of Hankersen International Corp.
on Form 10-KSB for the year ending December 31, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Pengcheng Chen, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of operations of the Company for
the year ended December 31, 2007.

March 28, 2008


By: /S/ PENGCHENG CHEN
    -------------------
         Pengcheng Chen, CEO
## U NITED 

## S TATES 

## N AVY



## – M ARINE 

## C ORPS 

## C OURT OF 

## C RIMINAL 

## A PPEALS

_________________________ No. 201 70 0 11 6

_________________________ 

### UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Appellee

v. 

### DEZMOND J

. BROMMEL Lance Corporal (E

- 3 ) , U.S. Marine Corps

Appellant

_________________________ Appeal from the United States Navy

- Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

Military Judge: Colonel Peter S. Rubin , USMC

. Convening Authority: Command ing Officer , Combat Logistics Regiment 25, 2d Marine Logistics Group , Camp Lejeune, NC. Staff Judge Advocate’s Recom mendation : Major M.T. Schnakenberg , USMC

. For Appellant: C aptain S cott F

. Hallauer , JAGC, USN

.

For Appellee: Brian K. Keller, Esq

.

_________________________ Decided 30 June 2017

_________________________ Before G LASER

- A LLEN , F ULTON , and P ETTIT , Appellate Military Ju dges

_________________________ After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of error, we affirm the findings and sentence as approved by the convening authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c).

For the Court

R.H. TROIDL Clerk of Court
Exhibit 10.3
 EXECUTION
VERSION
 SUPPLEMENTAL INDENTURE
 Supplemental Indenture Deerfield Capital LLC, Deerfield Triarc Capital LLC Company The Bank of New York
Trust Company, National Association Trustee
 Indenture
 Section 1.1 Section 1.5(b) Section 5.1
  Section 9.2
 
 Section 1.01 Corporate Trust Office Section 1.1
 Corporate Trust Office th
 Section 1.02 Section 1.1
 Guarantor
 Section 1.03 Section 1.1




---



##### 



Consolidated Net Worth
 First Indenture Section 5.1(h)
 Management Company
 Maximum Indebtedness Section 10.9(c)
 Seller Notes
 Section 1.04 Section 1.5(b)
  Section 1.05 Section 5.1 Section 5.1(e) Section 5.1(f) Section 5.1(g) and (h)
  First Indenture
 Section 1.06
 2




---



##### 



Section 1.07 Section 10.6(d)
 Minimum Consolidated Net Worth
 Section 1.08 Section 10.7 Section 10.6 Section 10.6 10.9 10.10
 Section 1.09 Sections 10.9 10.10
 Management Company Covenants
  provided, however Section 10.9(b)
 Maximum Indebtedness
 3




---



##### 



provided, however,
 Seller Notes
 provided Section 10.9(c)
 
 Section 2.01 TPF VIII TPF IX
 Section 2.02
 4




---



##### 



Section 2.03
 Section 2.04 Sections 1.2 9.3 Sections 1.2 9.3
 Section 2.05
 Section 2.06
 Section 2.07
 Section 2.08
 [Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank]
 5




---



##### 



DEERFIELD CAPITAL LLC,as CompanyBy:
    
   /s/ Robert C. GrienName: Robert C. GrienTitle: President
 THE BANK OF NEW YORK TRUSTCOMPANY, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,as TrusteeBy:
    
    /s/ Maria D. CalzadoName: Maria D. CalzadoTitle: Vice President
 THE BANK OF NEW YORK TRUSTCOMPANY, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,as Property Trustee(as to Section 2.01 only)By:
    
    /s/ Maria D. CalzadoName: Maria D. CalzadoTitle: Vice President
 DEERFIELD CAPITAL TRUST III(as to Section 2.01 only)By:
    
    /s/ Robert C. GrienName: Robert C. GrienTitle: Administrative TrusteeAttest: /s/ Robert A. ContrerasBy: Robert A. Contreras




---



##### 



TABERNA PREFERRED FUNDING VIII, LTD.(as to Section 2.01 only)By:
    
    /s/ John CullinaneName: John CullinaneTitle: DirectorAttest: /s/ Jolene NelsonBy: Jolene Nelson
 TABERNA PREFERRED FUNDING IX, LTD.(as to Section 2.01 only)By:
    
    /s/ John CullinaneName: John CullinaneTitle: DirectorAttest: /s/ Jolene NelsonBy: Jolene Nelson
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. William HARBOUR, Defendant/Appellant. William HARBOUR, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.

Nos. 66377, 68623.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Five.

June 25, 1996.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Aug. 1,1996.

Application to Transfer Denied Sept. 17,1996.

Dorothy Mae Hirzy, Public Defender, Clayton, for appellant.

John Munson Morris, III, Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before CRANE, C.J., AHRENS, J., and LOWENSTEIN, Special Judge.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals his conviction, after a jury trial, of forcible rape in violation of § 566.030 RSMo (Cum.Supp.1992), on which he was sentenced to life imprisonment without probation or parole as a persistent offender pursuant to § 558.018 RSMo (Cum. Supp.1993). Defendant also appeals from a judgment denying on the merits, without an evidentiary hearing, his Rule 29.15 motion.

No error of law appears and no jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion, for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

. , _ , . , The judgments are affirmed m accordance with Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).