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




**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**




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




**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**




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




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Best Care, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
      10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jing Jiang, in my
      capacity as Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
      certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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
              for the periods presented.
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date:
                November 15, 2007
            /s/
                Jing JiangJing
                Jiang
              Chief
                Executive Officer, Chief Financial
                Officer




The
      foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18,
      United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-QSB or as
      a
      separate disclosure document.





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Best Care, Inc. and will be retained by Best Care, Inc. and furnished to the
      Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1390-1 Filed 11/16/21 Page 1 of 5
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1390-1 Filed 11/16/21 Page 2 of 5
EXHIBIT A

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1390-1 Filed 11/16/21 Page 3 of 5
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1390-1 Filed 11/16/21 Page 4 of 5
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1390-1 Filed 11/16/21 Page 5 of 5
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 117 (Monday, June 17, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30613-30614]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15301]



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

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Dkt. C-3653]


Azrak-Hamway International, Inc., et al.; Prohibited Trade 
Practices, and Affirmative Corrective Actions

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Consent order.

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

SUMMARY: In settlement of alleged violations of federal law prohibiting 
unfair or deceptive acts or practices and unfair methods of 
competition, this consent order prohibits, among other things, the New 
York-based manufacturers and distributors of toys from using deceptive 
demonstrations and certain other misrepresentations. In addition, the 
consent order requires the respondents to offer full refunds to 
consumers who bought Steel Tec toy vehicles, and to notify television 
stations that ran the challenged advertisements of the Commission 
action, and of the availability of guidelines for screening children's 
advertising.

DATES: Complaint and Order issued May 2, 1996.\1\

    \1\ Copies of the Complaint and the Decision and Order are 
available from the Commission's Public Reference Branch, H-130, 6th 
Street & Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Toby Levin, FTC/S-4002, Washington, 
D.C. 20580. (202) 326-3156.


[[Page 30614]]


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On Thursday, February 22, 1996, there was 
published in the Federal Register, 61 FR 6841, a proposed consent 
agreement with analysis in the Matter of Azrak-Hamway International, 
Inc., et al., for the purpose of soliciting public comment. Interested 
parties were given sixty (60) days in which to submit comments, 
suggestions or objections regarding the proposed form of the order.
    No comments having been received, the Commission has ordered the 
issuance of the complaint in the form contemplated by the agreement, 
made its jurisdictional findings and entered an order to cease and 
desist, as set forth in the proposed consent agreement, in disposition 
of this proceeding.

(Sec. 6, 38 Stat. 721; 15 U.S.C. 46. Interprets or applies sec. 5, 
38 Stat. 719, as amended; 15 U.S.C. 45)
Donald S. Clark,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-15301 Filed 6-14-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-M
Exhibit
32.2





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 Amendment No. 1 to the Quarterly
Report of Florham Consulting Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the period
ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the “Report”), I, Kellis Veach, Chief Financial Officer, 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 results of operations of the Company.





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Florham Consulting Corp. and will be retained by Florham Consulting
Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.




/s/  Kellis
  VeachKellis
      VeachChief
      Financial Officer(Principal
      Accounting and Financial Officer)





July 29,
2010
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Tyrone La-Shun MARSHALL, Appellant. STATE of Missouri, Appellant, v. Tyrone L. MARSHALL, Defendant.

Nos. WD 52239, CR0195-045719F.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Dec. 3, 1996.

As Modified Dec. 24, 1996.

Rosalyn Koch, Asst. Public Defender, Columbia, for Appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Joanne E. Joiner, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for Respondent.

Before ELLIS, P.J., and LOWENSTEIN and LAURA DENVIR STITH, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Convicted by a jury of possession of a controlled substance, and sentenced as a pri- or offender, the defendant sought to suppress his incriminating statements to police after having sought counsel. Trial court was correct in overruling suppression since defendant voluntarily instigated further discussion with police. Affirmed Rule 30.25(b).
|   | (i) | the      Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d));      and |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (ii) | the      information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Issuer. |
|--------|------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated:      August 3, 2009 |   | /s/      Tim Courtis |
|----------------------------|--------|----------------------|
|                       |   | Tim      Courtis     |
SCPW-15-0000033

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

 

EDMUND M. ABORDO, 

Petitioner,

vs.

INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I, 

Respondent Court,

and

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY and SHARI KIMOTO, 

MAINLAND BRANCH ADMINISTRATOR, 

Respondents.

 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

(CAAP-13-0001474; CIV. NO. 11-1-2228)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)

Upon consideration of Petitioner Edmund M. Abordo’s

document entitled “Plaintiff-Appellant’s Writ of Mandamus for

Violation of the Rules [of] the Court and the Fourteenth

Amendment of the United States Constitution,” filed on January

20, 2015, and the record, it appears that Petitioner fails to

demonstrate that he has a clear and indisputable right to an

immediate decision in CAAP-13-0001474 and, therefore, mandamus

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCPW-15-0000033

02-FEB-2015

12:12 PM
relief is not warranted. See Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawai#i 200,

204-05, 982 P.2d 334, 338-39 (1999) (a writ of mandamus is an

extraordinary remedy that will not issue unless the petitioner

demonstrates a clear and indisputable right to relief and a lack

of alternative means to redress adequately the alleged wrong or

obtain the requested action). Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the clerk of the appellate

court shall process the petition for a writ mandamus without

payment of the filing fee.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for a writ of

mandamus is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, February 2, 2015. 

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

2
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 19 (Monday, January 29, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2822-2823]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-1555]



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

[[Page 2823]]


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-5405-8]


Notice of Proposed Administrative Cost Recovery Agreement Under 
Section 122(h)(1) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
Compensation, and Liability Act, Regarding the GE/Moreau Site, Moreau, 
New York

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of proposed administrative agreement and opportunity for 
public comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with Section 122(i) of the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as 
amended (``CERCLA''), 42 U.S.C. 9622(i), the U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency (``EPA'') Region II announces a proposed 
administrative settlement pursuant to Section 122(h)(1) of CERCLA, 42 
U.S.C. 9622(h)(1), relating to the GE/Moreau Site (the ``Site''), 
Moreau, Saratoga County, New York. This Site is on the National 
Priorities List established pursuant to Section 105(a) of CERCLA. This 
notice is being published to inform the public of the proposed 
settlement and of the opportunity to comment.
    The settlement, memorialized in an Administrative Cost Recovery 
Agreement (``Agreement''), is being entered into by EPA and the General 
Electric Company (the ``Respondent''). Under the Agreement, the 
Respondent shall pay EPA the sum of $600,000 in reimbursement of past 
response costs incurred by EPA with respect to the Site.

DATES: EPA will accept written comments relating to the proposed 
settlement for a period of thirty days from the date of publication of 
this notice.

ADDRESSES: Comments should reference the GE/Moreau Superfund Site and 
EPA Index No. II-CERCLA-95-0205. Comments and any requests for further 
information, including requests for a copy of the Agreement, should be 
sent to: Paul Simon, New York/Caribbean Superfund Branch, Office of 
Regional Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, 
17th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Paul Simon at telephone: (212) 637-3172.

    Dated: December 1, 1996.
William J. Muszynski,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-1555 Filed 1-26-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-M
EXHIBIT
      32.2




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
      accompanying Quarterly Report of Vanguard Natural Resources, LLC (the “Company”)
      on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Richard
      A. Robert, Executive Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
      certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C § 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, as amended;
                  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/
        Richard A. Robert





Richard
        A. Robert
 Executive
          Vice President and
 Chief
          Financial Officer
 (Principal
          Financial Officer)
  August
          13, 2008
EXHIBIT 32.2




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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of Lightlake Therapeutics Inc. (the “Company") for the three month ended October 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Seijin Ki, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, 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 results of operations of the Company.








Date: November 10, 2011                            By: /s/ Seijin Ki


Seijin Ki


Chief Financial Officer





This certification accompanies each Report pursuant to ss. 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 ss.18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.





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.
Exhibit F 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1267-6 Filed 09/03/21 Page 1 of 3
U.S. Department of Justice

United States Attorney

District of Arizona

Paul J. Cambria Jr.

Attorney at Law

Lipsitz Green Scime Cambria,

LLC

42 Delaware Ave, Suite 120 

Buffalo, NY 14202 

(attorney for Michael Lacey)

Jim Grant 

Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP

1201 Third Avenue,

Suite 2200

Seattle, WA 98101

(attorney for Lacey and Larkin)

Robert Corn-Revere

Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP

1919 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W., 

Suite 800

Washington, DC 20006

(attorney for Lacey and Larkin)

Thomas H. Bienart, Jr., Esq.

Bienart, Miller & Katzman, 

PLC

903 Calle Amanecer, Suite 350

San Clemente, CA 92673

(attorney for James Larkin)

Michael D. Kimerer, Esq.

1313 E. Osborn Road, 

Suite 100

Phoenix, AZ 85014

(attorney for Jed Brunst)

Bruce Feder, Esq.

2930 East Camelback Road, 

Suite 205

Phoenix, AZ 85016

(attorney for Scott Spear)

KC Maxwell, Esq.

Maxwell Law PC

899 Ellis Street

San Francisco, CA 94109

(attorney for Dan Hyer)

Mike Piccarreta, Esq.

Piccarreta Davis Keenan Fidel, PC

2 East Congress Street, 

Suite 1000

Tucson, AZ 85701

(attorney for Andrew Padilla)

Steve Weiss

Attorney at Law

Karp & Weiss, PC

3060 North Swan Rd.

Tucson, AZ 85712

(attorney for Joye Vaught)

Re: U.S. v. Michael Lacey, et.al.

CR-18-00422-PHX-SPL (BSB)

Dear Counsel:

Pursuant to your request for discovery and the government’s obligations under Fed. R. 

Crim. P. 16 and the stipulated scheduling order in this case, please find enclosed a thumb drive 

containing the government’s second disclosure.

1 The thumb drive contains the following Bates 

Stamped records:

 1 A thumb drive containing disclosure for defendants Michael Lacey and James Larkin are being provided to Paul J. 

Cambria Jr. and Thomas H. Bienart Jr., respectively.

Two Renaissance Square Main: (602) 514-7500

40 N. Central Ave., Suite 1800 Main Fax: (602) 514-7693

Phoenix, AZ 85004-4408

July 2, 2018

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1267-6 Filed 09/03/21 Page 2 of 3
Lacey, et. al. Discovery Letter 1

July 2, 2018

Page 2

• Released Records – DOJ-BP-0004426712-DOJ-BP-00045983962

• Civil Seizure Warrants – DOJ-BP-0004598397-DOJ-BP-0004601038

Please call with any questions or concerns.

Sincerely,

ELIZABETH A. STRANGE

First Assistant United States 

Attorney 

s/Reginald E. Jones

REGINALD E. JONES 

Senior Trial Attorney, USDOJ

KEVIN M. RAPP

MARGARET PERLMETER 

PETER S. KOZINETS 

ANDREW STONE

Assistant U.S. Attorneys

JOHN J. KUCERA 

Special Assistant U.S. Attorney

Enclosures

 2 USAO 108 subpoena, PSI, and USAO 359 subpoena records mistakenly withheld from the government’s May 25, 

2018, original disclosure.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1267-6 Filed 09/03/21 Page 3 of 3
---

EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATIONS UNDER SECTION 906 OF SARBANES-OXLEY

In connection with the quarterly report of Infolinx
Communications Ltd. (the "Company") on Form 10QSB for the fiscal period ending
August 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), I, Matthew Jones, President & C.E.O. 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.

/s/ Matthew Jones

Name: Matthew JonesTitle: President & Chief Executive
Officer October 18, 2007

---
Page 1

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

29

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States,

Plaintiff,

v.

Joye Vaught,

Defendant.

 Case No. CR-18-422-DJH

ORDER

Upon Motion of the Defendant, with good cause appearing,

IT IS ORDERED granting Defendant Joye Vaught leave to appear by 

[phone/videoconferencing] at the August 18, 2023 Frye-Cooper Hearing in this 

matter. Details for the remote appearance will be emailed to Ms. Vaught’s 

counsel, Joy Bertrand.

SO ORDERED this _______ day of ___________, 2023.

______________________

United States District Judge

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1698-1 Filed 08/14/23 Page 1 of 1
#### The State, ex rel. Clifton-Highland Co. et al., *v.*City of Lakewood et al.

(No. 23002

Decided November 18, 1931.)

*Messrs. Hawley S Gilson, Mr. Melville W. Vickery*and *Mr. John W. McGarron,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Mr. Robert G. Curren,*director of law, for defendants in error.

By the Court

(Kinkade, J.).

This case involves a claimed right of certain joint owners of real estate, situate in the city of Lakewood, Ohio, to erect a business building thereon, notwithstanding the fact that such building is prohibited by a zoning ordinance, duly enacted by that city.

The principal facts are not in dispute. The property is located at the intersection of Clifton boulevard, an east and west street, and West 117th street, a north and south street, and on the southwest corner, being 195 feet frontage on Clifton boulevard, and 110 feet frontage on West 117th street.

"When the zoning ordinance was passed' in 1922, this property had been improved by an apartment building, for residence purposes, and still so remains. It was then zoned for apartment buildings, as was other property abutting on Clifton boulevard for about four squares to the west thereof.

*400The owners now desire to substitute a business building. The city council of Lakewood was asked to modify the terms of the ordinance so as to permit the substitution. Council declined to do so. The city building commissioner refused the owners a building permit. The board of zoning appeals, on appeal, sustained the action of the building commissioner. The Court of Appeals, on hearing, refused the owners a writ of mandamus commanding the issue of a building permit. The owners prosecute error to this court.

Counsel for the owners in their brief definitely disclaim any intention to attack the validity of the Lakewood zoning ordinance in general. Their claim is that the ordinance, as applied to this particular tract of property, is invalid because of a change in nearby property from use as residence property to commercial use, which has rendered this tract of property practically worthless for residence purposes, and the same change of condition has greatly enhanced its value for business purposes, these values as claimed being now $250 to $300 per front foot on Clifton boulevard for residence uses and $700 to $1,000 per front foot for business uses, which fact the owners say renders the ordinance arbitrary, unreasonable and confiscatory, as applied to this property.

Manifestly these same questions of fact and this same argument were presented to the city council, its building commissioner, its board of zoning appeals, and finally to the Court of Appeals as well, all of whom found the issues in favor of the defendants.

A majority of this court is unable to find any error *401in the record justifying a reversal of the judgment entered by the Court of Appeals.

*Judgment ■affirmed.*

Marshall, C. J., Jones, Matthias and Day, JJ., concur.