alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 of White Dental Supply, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the three months ended September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Nancy White, acting in the capacity as the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I, Michael White, acting in the capacity as the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify to the best of our knowledge, 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 result of operations of the Company.





/s/ Nancy White

Nancy White

Chief Executive Officer

November 2, 2007





/s/ Michael White

Michael White

Chief Financial Officer

November 2, 2007
#### Virgil JOHNSON, Jr., Appellant, v. HAROLD CUSHSHON REALTY, INC., and Ira Young, Respondents.

No. 65916.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Dec. 20, 1994.

Virgil Johnson, Jr., acting pro se.

Ira M. Young, St. Louis, for respondent.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and GARY M. GAERTNER and CRAHAN, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Virgil Johnson, Jr., appeals from the St. Louis City Circuit Court’s decision granting summary judgment to respondents, Harold Cushshon Realty, Inc. and Ira Young, on appellant’s motion to set aside respondents’ purchase of appellant’s property at a foreclosure sale. We affirm. Appellant suffered no damages from the court’s dismissal of his petition to set aside the foreclosure sale, as that sale had already been declared void by the court in an earlier proceeding. Appellant’s motion was therefore moot and failed to state a cause of action. Respondents were entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

As we find no error of law, and that an extended opinion would have no precedential value, we affirm the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
EXHIBIT 32


                            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 American Water Star, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Roger
Mohlman, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Accounting Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 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/ Roger Mohlman
-----------------
Roger Mohlman, Chief Executive Officer and
Principal Accounting Officer
April 15, 2009


                                       41
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: James W. Cleveland v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-18-00668-CR

Trial court case number: 1529355

Trial court: 180th District Court of Harris County

The clerk’s record was filed on August 8, 2018, but the reporter’s record has not been filed. 

On August 10, 2018, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that the court reporter responsible 

for preparing the record in this appeal informed the Court that appellant had not made 

arrangements to pay for the record and this Court’s records indicated that appellant is not appealing 

as indigent. See TEX. R. APP. P. 35.3(b). The Clerk further notified appellant that unless he caused 

the reporter’s record to be filed in this Court, made arrangements to pay for the reporter’s record, 

or provided proof that he is entitled to proceed without payment of costs by January 10, 2018, the 

Court might consider the appeal without a reporter’s record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(c). Appellant 

failed to respond and has not provided the Court with evidence showing that he has paid or made 

arrangements to pay the court reporter or caused a reporter’s record to be filed in the Court. 

Accordingly, the Court will consider and decide those issues or points that do not require 

a reporter’s record for a decision. See id. Appellant’s brief is ORDERED to be filed within 30 days 

of the date of this order. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(a).

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: ____/s/ Gordon Goodman______

 Acting individually 

Date: __March 5, 2019__
H. Res. 89 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

November 2, 2009. 

Whereas veterans of service in the United States Armed 

Forces have served the Nation with honor and at great 

personal sacrifice; 

Whereas the American people owe the security of the Nation 

to those who have defended it; 

Whereas on Veterans Day each year, the Nation honors those 

who have defended democracy by serving in the Armed 

Forces; 

Whereas veterans continue to provide a valuable service in 

their communities across the Nation and are important 

members of American society; 

Whereas we must honor and express our sincere gratitude to 

all our veterans for their unwavering commitment to 

country, justice and democracy; 

Whereas the observance of Veterans Day is an expression of 

faith in democracy, faith in American values, and faith 

that those who fight for freedom will defeat those whose 

cause is unjust; and 

Whereas section 6103(a) of title 5, United States Code, provides that ‘‘Veteran’s Day, November 11’’ is a legal public holiday: Now, therefore, be it 
2 

•HRES 89 EH 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

(1) encourages Americans to demonstrate their support for veterans on Veterans Day each year by treating 

that day as a special day of reflection; 

(2) encourages schools and teachers to educate students on the great contributions veterans have made to 

the country and its history, both while serving as members of the United States Armed Forces and after completing their service; and 

(3) requests that the President issue a proclamation 

each year in connection with the observance of Veterans 

Day calling on the people of the United States to observe that day with appropriate ceremonies and activities. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Northway Financial, Inc.
      (the
“Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned Chief
      Financial Officer and Treasurer for the Company, certifies 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),
                as
                applicable, 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.





This
      certification is provided solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and Item
      601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K (“Item 601(b)(32)”) promulgated under the
      Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”) and the Securities Exchange Act of
      1934 (the “Exchange Act”). In accordance with clause (ii) of Item 601(b)(32),
      this certification (A) shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of
      the Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section, and
      (B)
      shall 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.








/s/
      RICHARD P.
      ORSILLO


Richard
      P. Orsillo


Senior
      Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and


Treasurer





Date:
      March 22, 2007
H. Res. 855 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

April 21, 2010. 

Whereas the House of Representatives has always honored 

the sacrifices made by the wounded and ill members of 

the Armed Forces; 

Whereas the Silver Star Service Banner has come to represent the members of the Armed Forces and veterans 

who were wounded or became ill in combat in the wars 

fought by the United States; 

Whereas the Silver Star Families of America was formed to 

help the American people remember the sacrifices made 

by the wounded and ill members of the Armed Forces by 

designing and manufacturing Silver Star Service Banners 

and Flags for that purpose; 

Whereas the sole mission of the Silver Star Families of 

America is to evoke memories of the sacrifices of members and veterans of the Armed Forces on behalf of the 

United States through the presence of a Silver Star Service Banner in a window or a Silver Star Flag flying; 

Whereas the sacrifices of members and veterans of the Armed 

Forces on behalf of the United States should never be 

forgotten; and 

Whereas May 1 would be an appropriate date to designate as 

‘‘Silver Star Service Banner Day’’: Now, therefore, be it 
2 

•HRES 855 EH 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives supports 

the designation of ‘‘Silver Star Service Banner Day’’ and 

calls upon the people of the United States to observe the day 

with appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 2658

_____________________________
J AMES M ICHAEL H AWLEY , Appellant,

v.

S TATE O F F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Steven B. Whittington , Judge

. June 13, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. R OBERTS , W ETHERELL , and M AKAR , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________

James Michael Hawley, pro se
, Appellant.2 Ashley Moody
, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
|   | 1. | The Report fully complies with 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. |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:   April 20, 2011 | /s/ Todd Hays           |   |
|----------------------------------|-------------------------|--------|
|                             | Todd Hays               |   |
|                             | Chief Executive Officer |   |
|                             |                    |   |
|                             | /s/ Richard Leimbach    |   |
|                             | Richard Leimbach        |   |
|                             | Chief Financial Officer |   |
#### Brian Kent HOOK, Appellant, v. Jeannette M. LOHNMAN, Director of Revenue, Respondent.

No. WD 50022.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Aug. 29, 1995.

Patrick J. Eng, Columbia, for appellant.

Charles Gooch, Jefferson City, for respondent.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from the judgment of the circuit court affirming the revocation of appellant’s driving privileges pursuant to § 302.505, RSMo 1994.

Affirmed. Rule 84.16(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 Quarterly Report of China Multimedia, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2008 (the "Report"), I, Wilson Cheung, President and Chairman 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 requirement 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 Company's financial position and results of operations.  /s/Wilson CheungWilson Cheung, President and Chairman August 14, 2008
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Darron OLLISON, Appellant.

No. 62201.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.

Aug. 3, 1993.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Sept. 8, 1993.

Application to Transfer Denied Oct. 26, 1993.

Richard H. Sindel, Clayton, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Rudolph R. Rhodes, IV, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before CARL R. GAERTNER, P.J., and CRANE and CRAHAN, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Darron Ollison (“Defendant”) was convicted by a jury of first degree assault and armed criminal action for which he was sentenced to concurrent terms of five years and one year respectively. In this appeal, Defendant asserts that the evidence was insufficient to support submission of first degree assault and alleges error in the trial court’s exclusion of certain testimony and refusal of his tendered instruction on second degree assault. We affirm.

An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).
Exhibit 10.3





Exhibit 10.3


SECOND AMENDMENT

OF PURCHASE AGREEMENT


This Second Amendment of Share Purchase Agreement (the
“Amendment”) is made as of January 31, 2009 by and between Stuart Discount (“SELLER”),
Telestar Acquisition Corporation, a Pennsylvania Corporation and Tele-Response Center, Inc., a Tennessee Corporation
(collectively hereinafter “121DR” or “Company”) and International Consolidated Companies, Inc.,
a Florida corporation (“BUYER”).


RECITALS


WHEREAS, SELLER and BUYER have previously entered into that certain
Share Purchase Agreement dated December 18, 2008 (the “Original Agreement”); a copy of which attached
hereto as Exhibit “A”.


WHEREAS, the parties wish to extend the closing set forth in the
Original Agreement, with such new closing to be effective on an exact date to be established by both parties, but prior
to February 15, 2009


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above recitals, the
terms and covenants of this agreement, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which
is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:


1. The parties hereto acknowledge and agree that this Amendment shall
in no way act as a waiver of any of the conditions and obligations imposed upon them by the Original Agreement, and any
rights and remedies which either of them may have by virtue of the Original Agreement are to be considered as of full
force and effect.


2. All capitalized terms in this Amendment that are not defined herein
shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the Original Agreement.


3. Except as otherwise provided in this Amendment, the parties hereto
acknowledge and agree that all of the terms, conditions and provisions of the Original Agreement are by reference made
a part of, and shall apply to, this Amendment.







1


1









 





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to
be duly executed by their respective duly authorized legal representatives as of the date first above written.


SELLER 

Stuart Discount


By: /S/ Stuart
Discount                                            

Stuart Discount, Individually



TELESTAR ACQUISITION CORPORATION


By: /S/ Stuart
Discount                                              

Stuart
Discount, President




TELE-RESPONSE CENTER, INC.


By: /S/ Stuart
Discount                                               

Stuart
Discount, President




BUYER 

International Consolidated Companies, Inc.


By: /S/ Antonio F. Uccello,
III                                   

Antonio
F. Uccello, III, President and Chief Executive Officer






2


2
## THE STATE OF TEXAS
MANDATE

TO THE 196TH DISTRIC T COURT OF HUNT COUN TY, GREETINGS:
Before the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Court of Appeals District of Texas, on the 23rd
day of September, A.D. 2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your Judgment was

determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

Jamey Justin Smith, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee No. 06

- 14

- 00042

- CR

Trial Court No. 28,912

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court

below

. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
We note that the appellant, Jamey Justin Smith, has adequately indicated his inability to
pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court in this
behalf, and in all things to have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS, the Hon. Josh R. Morriss, III, Chief Justice of our said Cou rt of Appeals, with
the seal thereof annexed, at the City of Texarkana, this the 23rd day of November , A.D. 2015

.

DEBRA K. AUTREY , Clerk
[ARTICLE] 5
[CIK] 0001041711
[NAME] GLOBAL DIGITAL INFORMATION, INC.
<TABLE>
<S>                             <C>
[PERIOD-TYPE]                   YEAR
[FISCAL-YEAR-END]                          MAR-31-1998
[PERIOD-END]                               MAR-31-1998
[CASH]                                         103,828
[SECURITIES]                                    10,532
[RECEIVABLES]                                 (67,461)
[ALLOWANCES]                                         0
[INVENTORY]                                      8,044
[CURRENT-ASSETS]                               103,828
[PP&E]                                          30,104
[DEPRECIATION]                                   3,345
[TOTAL-ASSETS]                                 138,631
[CURRENT-LIABILITIES]                          209,469
[BONDS]                                              0
[PREFERRED-MANDATORY]                                0
[PREFERRED]                                          0
[COMMON]                                      (67,493)
[OTHER-SE]                                           0
[TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY]                   141,976
[SALES]                                              0
[TOTAL-REVENUES]                               112,898
[CGS]                                                0
[TOTAL-COSTS]                                        0
[OTHER-EXPENSES]                               506,262
[LOSS-PROVISION]                                     0
[INTEREST-EXPENSE]                                   0
[INCOME-PRETAX]                                112,898
[INCOME-TAX]                                    67,712
[INCOME-CONTINUING]                          (393,364)
[DISCONTINUED]                                       0
[EXTRAORDINARY]                                      0
[CHANGES]                                            0
[NET-INCOME]                                 (391,462)
[EPS-PRIMARY]                                     .001
[EPS-DILUTED]                                     .001
</TABLE>
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Michael Jabbar NICHOLS, Appellant.

No. WD 48619.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Feb. 20, 1996.

Ellen H. Flottman, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Frank Jung, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Michael Jabbar Nichols appeals the circuit court’s judgment convicting him of first degree murder, second degree assault, and two counts of armed criminal action. He complains that the circuit court denied his motion to suppress the state’s evidence obtained during his arrest. He also appeals the circuit court’s denial of his Rule 29.15 motion *796for posteonviction relief in which he accused his trial attorney of incompetence for failing to object to the state’s cross-examination concerning his flight from a halfway house. We affirm. Because we do not discern any jurisprudential value in publishing an opinion, we issue this summary order. Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b). We have issued a memorandum to the parties explaining our decision.
#### The State, ex rel. Russell, *v.*Miller, Clerk.

(No. 23200

Decided November 4, 1931.)

*Mr. Benjamin E. Seibert,*for relator.

It is ordered by the court, on its own motion, that this cause be dismissed at the cost of the relator for *668the reason that the cause is now a moot one, since the court on this day has ordered the defendant to issue the writ prayed for.

*Cause dismissed.*

Marshall, C. J., Jones, Matthias, Day, Allen, Kinkade and Robinson, *JJ.,*concur.