alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 MEMSIC, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Yang Zhao, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       
|-----------------------
|/S/    YANG ZHAO       
|Yang Zhao              
|Chief Executive Officer
|August 11, 2008        

This Certification shall not be deemed part of the Report or incorporated by reference into any of
the Companys filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission by implication or by any reference in any such filings to the Report.
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Victor SMITH, Defendant/Appellant.

No. 63221.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Feb. 1, 1994.

Robert E. Steele, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for defendant, appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Traci J. Sanders, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for plaintiff, respondent.

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

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals his conviction by a jury for attempted stealing, § 564.011, RSMo 1986. The trial court sentenced him to seven years’ imprisonment. We affirm. We have reviewed the record and find the claims of error to be 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 pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, February 28, 2017.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, February 28, 2017

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A17I0149. THE STATE v. DANIEL WOOD PEABODY.

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of 

this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record 

transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

LC NUMBERS:

16CR0749
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

AKANINYENE EFIONG AKAN,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 214 WAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 20th day of October, 2020, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.

Justice Wecht did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.
#### Betty L. DEAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Duane BENTON, Director of Revenue, Respondent-Respondent.

No. 57204.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

June 5, 1990.

Charles A. Hurth, III, Pacific, for appellant.

Duke A. McDonald, Asst. Pros. Atty., Union, for respondent.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Driver appeals from the denial of her petition for review of an administrative revocation of her driver’s license based on her refusal to submit to a chemical blood analysis. We affirm. No error of law appears, and an extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only setting forth the reasons for our order affirming the judgment pursuant to 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 

Paul Allen Sorensen, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Karen Barcklay, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV-18-00674-PHX-JAT (ESW)

ORDER 

 On January 25, 2019, the Court denied the Motion to Substitute (Doc. 25) filed by 

Dorothy McKaney, and stated that “Mrs. McKaney may not represent a successor without 

legal authority to do so.” (Doc. 38 at 3). On March 18, 2019, Mrs. McKaney filed a Motion 

to Substitute that states that “[n]otice is hereby given that Dorothy McKaney is substituted 

as representative of record for Paul and Leeland Sorensen.” (Doc. 39 at 1). Attached to 

the Motion is a Durable Power of Attorney for Financial Management given by Leeland 

Sorensen to Dorothy McKaney. (Id. at 3-7). However, there is no evidence that Mrs. 

McKaney is an attorney licensed to appear in this Court. Although a non-attorney litigant 

may appear on his own behalf, only an attorney may appear on behalf of another person. 

See C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987) (a nonattorney has no authority to appear as an attorney for anyone other than himself). 

Therefore, Mrs. McKaney is not authorized to appear in this matter on Mr. Sorensen’s 
- 2 - 

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 

behalf. The Court will deny the March 18, 2019 Motion to Substitute (Doc. 39) and Motion 

for Leave to File a Supplemental Complaint (Doc. 42) filed by Dorothy McKaney. 

The Court has reviewed the Reply (Doc. 46) to Defendants’ Motion for Clarification 

(Doc. 41) filed by Mrs. McKaney.1

 The Court will direct Defendants to attempt service of 

the Notice of Death on Leeland Sorensen at the address listed in the Reply (Doc. 46 at 1) 

filed by Dorothy McKaney and in the Durable Power of Attorney attached to the Motion 

to Substitute (Doc. 39 at 2). 

Based on the foregoing, 

IT IS ORDERED denying the March 18, 2019 Motion to Substitute (Doc. 39). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying the Motion for Leave to File a 

Supplemental Complaint (Doc. 42) filed by Dorothy McKaney. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall attempt to serve a copy of this 

Order, the Notice to Court Regarding Plaintiff’s Death (Doc. 24), and Statement Noting 

Death (Doc. 27) upon Plaintiff’s successor Leeland Sorensen at the address listed in the 

Reply (Doc. 46 at 1) filed by Dorothy McKaney and in the Durable Power of Attorney 

attached to the Motion to Substitute (Doc. 39 at 2). By May 31, 2019, Defendants shall 

file proof of service or a notice indicating their continued attempts to serve Leeland 

Sorensen. 

Dated this 29th day of April, 2019. 

1

 The Court granted the Motion for Clarification (Doc. 41) on April 11, 2019. (Doc. 45).
#### STATE of Missouri, Appellant, v. James DOUGHERTY, Respondent.

No. 62197.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Northern Division.

Aug. 17, 1993.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Aundreia R. Alexander, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for appellant.

David H. Ash, Mcllroy and Millan, Bowling Green, for respondent.

Before AHRENS, P.J., and KAROHL and CRIST, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

In this jury-tried case, the state appeals from the grant of defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal notwithstanding the verdict of the jury in prosecution of the charge of receiving stolen property in violation of § 570.080 RSMo 1986. We affirm.

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 judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Martinho D Rocha, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Julia Barnett, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV-18-00865-PHX-ROS (CDB) 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff has been unsuccessful in serving Defendant Julia Barnett, a former Corizon 

physician. Pending before the Court is a motion filed by Plaintiff to produce Defendant 

Barnett’s contact information from the American Medical Association and a Report and 

Recommendation from Magistrate Judge Camille D. Bibles to dismiss Defendant Barnett 

without prejudice for failure to serve (Docs. 34, 35). 

 In February 2019, counsel for Corizon provided the Court with Defendant Barnett’s 

last known address, but despite multiple attempts, personal service was unsuccessful 

(Docs. 24, 29, 30). The Court notes however, that another firm represents Defendant 

Barnett in another ongoing action in this District concerning the provision of health care. 

See Terrazas v. Corizon Health Inc., 2:17-CV-00757-DJH. Because both actions relate to 

Defendant Barnett’s work on behalf of Corizon, the Court will require current counsel for 

Corizon ask counsel for Defendant Barnett in Terrazas v. Corizon Health Inc. for Barnett’s 

address.1

 If Barnett’s counsel provides a new address, counsel for Corizon must file that 

 

1

 It is unlikely that Barnett’s address will qualify as protected by the attorney-client privilege. See Viveros v. Nationwide Janitorial Ass’n, Inc., 200 F.R.D. 681, 683 (N.D. Ga. 
- 2 - 

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 

address under seal within 10 days of this Order. In the alternative, counsel for Corizon 

may file a notice accepting service on Defendant Barnett’s behalf. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 35) 

is rejected. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Discovery (Doc. 34) is denied 

without prejudice. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that current counsel for Corizon must confer with 

counsel for Barnett and identify an address at which Defendant Barnett can be served. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED counsel for Corizon must either accept service on 

behalf of Barnett or file Barnett’s address under seal within 10 days of this Order. Upon 

receipt of that information, the Clerk of the Court shall prepare and send to the U.S. 

Marshal a service packet for service of the Summons and Complaint upon Defendant 

Barnett. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the time for completing service on Defendants 

Barnett shall be extended sixty (60) days from the date this Order is filed. 

 Dated this 2nd day of August, 2019. 

Honorable Roslyn O. Silver

Senior United States District Judge 

 

 

2000) (noting (“the attorney-client privilege applies to a client’s address only when the client communicated the address confidentially, and the legal advice sought involves the address”).
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 on Form 10-Q 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"), Dr. Roger Crystal, as Chief Executive 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: December 14, 2010                             By: /s/ Dr. Roger Crystal


Dr. Roger Crystal


Chief Executive 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 13.2

Certification

Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,
Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)

Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the
undersigned officer of Multicanal S.A., asociedad anónima(stock corporation) (the "Company"), does here certify, to the best of such
officer's knowledge, that:

The
Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2004 (the "Form 20-F") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of
section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material aspects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.

Dated:
June 17, 2005

| | /s/ Adrián MészarosTitle:  Chief Financial and Administrative Officer
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------

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

---
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 40772

STATE OF IDAHO ,

Plaintiff-Respondent ,

v.

JAMES HIRAM KOUNTZ ,

Defendant-Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2014 Unpublished Opinion No. 307

Filed: January 6, 2014

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho, Kootenai County. Hon. Charles W. Hosack , District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of twenty years, with a minimum period of confinement of four years , for aggravated battery wi th use of a deadly weapon during the commission of a crime and a persistent violator sentencing enhancement

, affirmed

.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defende r; Jason C. Pintler, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Jessica M. Lorello, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________
Before GUTIERREZ, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge; and GRATTON, Judge

PER CURIAM

James Hiram Kountz was convicted of aggravated battery with use of a deadly weapon

during the com mission of a crime and a persistent violator sentencing enhancement , Idaho Code

§ 18

- 907 . The district court se ntenced Kountz to a unified term of twenty years, with a

minimum period of confinement of four years

. Kountz appeals, contending that his sentence is

excessive.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the

f

actors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and2 need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez , 121 Idaho 114, 117

- 18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014

- 15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez , 106 Idaho 447, 449

- 51, 680 P.2d 869, 871

- 73 (Ct. App.

1984); State v. Toohill , 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver , 144 Idaho

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Kountz ’s judgment of con viction and sentence are affirmed.
|    |                                                                                                                  |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Cheniere Energy Partners, L.P.; and |

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

|                                                          |
|----------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                          |
|                                                     |
| /s/ H. Davis Thames                                      |
| H. Davis Thames                                          |
| Chief Financial Officer of                               |
| Cheniere Energy Partners GP, LLC, the general partner of |
| Cheniere Energy Partners, L.P.                           |
AO 458 (Rev. 06/09) Appearance of Counsel 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

United States of America 

Plainliff 

v. 

Michael Lacey. et al. 

Defendanl 

for the 

District of Arizona 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. CR-18-00422-PHX-SPL (BSB) 

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL 

To: The clerk of court and all parties of record 

I am admitted or otherwise authorized to practice in this court, and I appear in this case as counsel for: 

James Larkin 

Date: -~ /2 ~/ 8 __ A //orney 's signa/ure 

Whitney Z. Bernstein (CA SBN #304917) 

Prinled name and bar number 

903 Calle Amanecer 

Suite 350 

San Clemente CA 92673 

Address 

wbernstein@bmkattorneys.com 

E-mail address 

(949) 369-3700 

Telephone number 

(949) 369-3701 

FAX number 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 280 Filed 08/23/18 Page 1 of 2
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

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I certify that on this 23rd day of August, 2018, I electronically transmitted a 

PDF version of this document to the Clerk of Court, using the CM/ECF System, for 

filing and for transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF 

registrants listed below. 

/s/ Michele Ueda 

 Michele Ueda

CM/ECF Registrants: 

Reginald Jones, reginald.jones4@usdoj.gov 

Peter Kozinets, peter.kozinets@usdoj.gov 

Margaret Perlmeter, margaret.perlmeter@usdoj.gov 

Kevin Rapp, kevin.rapp@usdoj.gov 

Andrew Stone, andrew.stone@usdoj.gov 

Paul Cambria, pcambria@lglaw.com 

Tom Bienert, tbienert@bmkattorneys.com 

Bruce Feder, bf@federlawpa.com 

Michael Kimerer, mdk@kimerer.com 

Stephen Weiss, sweiss@karpweiss.com

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 280 Filed 08/23/18 Page 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 113 (Tuesday, June 11, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 29547]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14665]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP96-255-000]


Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Company; Notice of Compliance 
Filing

June 5, 1996.
    Take notice that on May 31, 1996, Williston Basin Interstate 
Pipeline Company (Williston Basin), tendered for filing, its Annual 
Take-or-Pay Reconciliation Filing pursuant to Sections 36 and 37 of the 
General Terms and Conditions of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised 
Volume No. 1. More specifically, Williston Basin filed the following 
tariff sheets, to become effective July 1, 1996.

Second Revised Volume No. 1
Seventeenth Revised Sheet No. 15
Twentieth Revised Sheet No. 16
Seventeenth Revised Sheet No. 18
Fifteenth Revised Sheet No. 21
Third Revised Sheet No. 321
Original Volume No. 2
Sixty-second Revised Sheet No. 11B

    Williston Basin states that the revised tariff sheets are being 
filed to reflect recalculated fixed monthly surcharges and revised 
throughput surcharges to be effective during the period July 1, 1996 
through June 30, 1997 pursuant to the procedures contained in Sections 
36 and 37 of the General Terms and Conditions of Williston Basin's FERC 
Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Secs. 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and 
Regulations. All such motions or protests should be filed on or before 
June 12, 1996. Protests will be considered by the Commission in 
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to 
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to 
become a party to the proceeding must file a motion to intervene. 
Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available 
for public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-14665 Filed 6-10-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
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 MEMSIC, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Yang Zhao, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of  operations of the Company.







/s/ YANG ZHAOYang ZhaoChief Executive OfficerNovember 15, 2010




This Certification shall not be deemed part of the Report or incorporated by reference into any of the Company’s filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission by implication or by any reference in any such filings to the Report.