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





CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
      TO


18
      U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I,
      Daniel
      Motsinger, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
      to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of
      IntelliHome, Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2008
      fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-QSB fairly
      presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of
      operations of IntelliHome, Inc.





By:
                /s/ Daniel MotsingerName:
                Daniel MotsingerTitle:
                Chief Executive Officer andChief
                Financial OfficerDated:
                August 20, 2008
|   |           |   |   |   |   | RIDGEWOOD ENERGY V FUND, LLC                    |
|--------|----------------|--------|--------|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------------|
| Dated: | August 2, 2010 | By:    | /s/    |   |   | ROBERT E. SWANSON                                    |
|   |           |   | Name:  |   |   | Robert E. Swanson                                    |
|   |           |   | Title: |   |   | Chief Executive Officer                              |
|   |           |   |   |   |   | (Principal Executive Officer)                        |
|   |           |   |   |   |   |                                                 |
|   |           |   |   |   |   |                                                 |
| Dated: | August 2, 2010 | By:    | /s/    |   |   | KATHLEEN P. MCSHERRY                                 |
|   |           |   | Name:  |   |   | Kathleen P. McSherry                                 |
|   |           |   | Title: |   |   | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|   |           |   |   |   |   | (Principal Financial Officer)                        |
|   |           |   |   |   |   |                                                 |
|   |           |   |   |   |   |                                                 |

----
Order entered June 13, 2022

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-22-00399-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF M.P.B., ET AL ., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 304th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. JC-20-00678-W

ORDER

Before the Court is appellants’ joint motion for a ten-day extension of time 

to file their briefs. We GRANT the motion and ORDER the briefs be filed no 

later than June 24, 2022.

/s/ CRAIG SMITH

JUSTICE
```
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 116 (Friday, June 14, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30221-30222]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15082]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

North American Free-Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Article 1904 
Binational Panel Reviews

AGENCY: NAFTA Secretariat, United States Section, International Trade 
Administration, Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Binational Panel Decision.

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

SUMMARY: On May 6, 1996 the Binational Panel issued its decision in the 
review of the final Determination Not to Revoke Antidumping Duty Orders 
and Findings Not to Terminate Suspended Investigations made by the 
International Trade Administration respecting Color Picture Tubes from 
Canada, Secretariat File No. USA-95-1904-03. The Binational Panel 
affirmed the final determination. A copy of the complete Panel decision 
is available from the NAFTA Secretariat.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
James R. Holbein, United States Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat, Suite 
2061, 14th and Constitution Avenue, Washington, D.C. 20230, (202) 482-
5438.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Chapter 19 of the North American Free-Trade 
Agreement (``Agreement'') establishes a mechanism to replace domestic 
judicial review of final determination in antidumping and 
countervailing duty cases involving imports from a NAFTA country with 
review by independent binational panels. When a Request for Panel 
Review is filed, a panel is established to act in place of national 
courts to review expeditiously the final determination to determine 
whether it conforms with the antidumping or countervailing duty law of 
the country that made the determination.

[[Page 30222]]

    Under Article 1904 of the Agreement, which came into force on 
January 1, 1994, the Government of the United States, the Government of 
Canada and the Government of Mexico established Rules of Procedure for 
Article 1904 Binational Panel Reviews (``Rules''). These Rules were 
published in the Federal Register on February 23, 1994 (59 FR 8686). 
The Binational Panel review in this matter was conducted in accordance 
with these Rules.

Background

    On June 26, 1995 Mitsubishi Electronics Industries Canada, Inc. 
filed a First Request for Panel Review with the U.S. Section of the 
NAFTA Secretariat pursuant to Article 1904 of the North American Free 
Trade Agreement. After filing of complaints, briefs and other documents 
and the hearing of oral argument, the Binational Panel issued its 
decision on May 6, 1996.

Panel Decision

    In its May 6 decision, the Binational Panel affirmed the Commerce 
Department's final determination not to revoke the antidumping duty 
order on Color Picture Tubes from Canada.

    Dated: May 17, 1996.
James R. Holbein.
United States Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat.
[FR Doc. 96-15082 Filed 6-13-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-GT-M
```
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-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009 (the "Report"), I, Wilson Cheung, President 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 May 15, 2009
EXHIBIT 99.6

                                  CERTIFICATION

         Pursuant to Section  906 of the Public  Company  Accounting  Reform and
Investor Protection Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted), John LaBoskey,
the Chief Financial  Officer of BEI  Technologies,  Inc. (the "Company")  hereby
certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:

         1.       The Company's  Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended
                  September 28, 2002, to which this Certification is attached as
                  Exhibit 99.6 (the "Annual  Report"),  fully  complies with the
                  requirements   of  Section  13(a)  or  Section  15(d)  of  the
                  Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

         2.       The   information   contained  in  the  Annual  Report  fairly
                  presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of
                  the  Company  at the end of the  period  covered by the Annual
                  Report and results of operations of the Company for the period
                  covered by the Annual Report.

Dated:   December 19, 2002

/s/ John LaBoskey
----------------------------
John LaBoskey
Chief Financial Officer
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

September 21, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 128272 Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman,

Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices 

v SC: 128272 

 COA: 256117 

Iosco CC: 01-004288-FH 

RICHARD ALAN GREEN,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 25, 2005 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

KELLY, J., would grant leave to appeal. 

s0914 

I, CORBIN R. DAVIS, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

September 21, 2005
 

Clerk
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 Shopper's Wallet, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2007, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Jacob Perry, principal executive 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, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

     (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 the operation of the
Company.


/s/ Jacob Perry
--------------------------------
Jacob Perry
Principal Executive Officer
May 4, 2007

This certification accompanies this 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 Registrant for the purposes of
ss.18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. This certification
shall not be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act
of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether
made before or after the date of this Report), irrespective of any general
incorporation language contained in such filing.

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.
#### Ex parte Paul E. DELCOURT.

No. D-4560.

Supreme Court of Texas.

June 22, 1994.

Shawn Casey, Houston, for petitioner.

*812Roland Kemp, Houston, for respondent.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

We withdraw our prior opinion and substitute the following.

This petition for writ of habeas corpus arises from the enforcement of a temporary order in a divorce proceeding. The order provided, in part, that Paul Delcourt would make certain monthly payments for his wife. When Delcourt quit making payments because the underlying debt had been extinguished, his wife filed a contempt motion, asserting some forty-four different counts. The trial court found Delcourt in contempt for some of the counts and issued its *first*contempt judgment and commitment order. Approximately two weeks later, while Delc-ourt had the first order under consideration by a court of appeals on petition for writ of habeas corpus, the trial judge signed a *second*contempt judgment and commitment order, purporting to find additional violations for which he held Delcourt in contempt. This second commitment order issued without any additional hearing or notice.

The court of appeals discharged relator from all incarceration under the first commitment order. Delcourt filed petition for writ of habeas corpus in this court for his confinement under the second order. The real party in interest, though duly requested to respond, filed no reply before motion for rehearing. We consider here only the second commitment order. If that order be considered a new commitment, not issued under the first hearing, then it issued without notice and hearing and is void for denying Delcourt due process. *Ex parte Barnett,*600 S.W.2d 252, 256 (Tex.1980). Conversely, if the second commitment order issued as a result of the first contempt hearing, then no ■written commitment was signed sufficiently close to the time the judge pronounced the contempt to satisfy due process requirements, and Delcourt’s commitment is again void for lack of due process. *Ex parte Calvillo Amaya,*748 S.W.2d 224, 224-25 (Tex.*1988).*Under either possibility relator’s due process rights have been violated, and the trial court’s actions conflict with the opinions of this court. We reject the argument on motion for rehearing, that *Amaya*applies only to the *first*commitment order signed after a hearing, and that subsequent additional contempt judgments and commitments may be freely signed weeks later. We overrule the motion for rehearing. Without hearing argument, a majority of the court grants Paul Delcourt’s petition for writ of habeas corpus and orders him discharged. Tex. R.App.P. 122.
EXHIBIT 32.1
                                                                    ------------



                                  CERTIFICATION
                                  -------------

          CERTIFICATION REQUIRED BY RULE 13A-14(B) AND SECTION 1350 OF
                CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE

In connection with the report of Vasogen Inc. (the "Company") on the Form 40-F
for the fiscal year ending November 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
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.

DATED this 16th day of April, 2004.


/s/ David G. Elsley
------------------------------------
David G. Elsley
President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer),
Vasogen Inc.
#### Martha Fern MILLER, Respondent-Petitioner, v. Herbert F. MILLER, Appellant-Respondent.

No. 67528.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Northern Division.

Nov. 21, 1995.

Keith M. Bail, Thomas M. Schneider, Jones, Schneider & Bartlett, Columbia, for appellant.

Daniel W. Deiter, Montgomery City, for respondent.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and AHRENS and RHODES, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Herbert Miller (husband) and Martha Fern Miller (wife) were married on March 16,1991 in Callaway County, Missouri. They separated on or about August 21, 1993. On September 3, 1993, wife filed a petition for dissolution of marriage. A decree of dissolution was entered on December 9, 1994 paralleling a division of property made by the parties. Husband appeals the trial court’s division of marital property.

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 84.16(b).
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 119 (Wednesday, June 19, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 31085]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15468]



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


FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No.96-130, RM-8818]


Radio Broadcasting Services; Grenada, MS

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission requests comments on a petition by Darby Radio 
Enterprises proposing the allotment of Channel 267A at Grenada, 
Mississippi, as an additional FM service. Channel 267A can be allotted 
to Grenada in compliance with the Commission's minimum distance 
separation requirements with a site restriction of 9.2 kilometers (5.7 
miles) west to avoid short-spacing conflicts with the licensed site of 
Station WJDQ(FM), Channel 267C1, Meridian, Mississippi, and to the 
proposal (FM-7437) to add Channel 269A at Coffeeville, Mississippi. The 
coordinates for Channel 267A at Grenada are 33-47-48 and 89-54-29.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or before August 5, 1996, and reply 
comments on or before August 20, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554. In 
addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should 
serve the petitioner, or its counsel or consultant, as follows: Darby 
Radio Enterprises, P.O. Box 9, Charleston, Mississippi 38921 
(petitioner).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pam Blumenthal, Mass Media Bureau, 
(202) 418-2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No.96-130, adopted June 7, 
1996, and released June 14, 1996. The full text of this Commission 
decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business 
hours in the FCC's Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, NW., 
Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be 
purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, ITS, Inc., (202) 857-
3800, 2100 M Street, NW., Suite 140, Washington, DC 20037.
    Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply 
to this proceeding.
    Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of 
Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to 
Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are 
prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve 
channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing 
permissible ex parte contacts.
    For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, 
see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Radio broadcasting.

Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media 
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 96-15468 Filed 6-18-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-F
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18. U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of NeurogesX, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2011 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial
condition and results of operations of NeurogesX, Inc.

Dated: May 9, 2011

By:

/s/ Anthony A. DiTonnoAnthony A. DiTonnoPresident and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)By:

/s/ Stephen F. GhiglieriStephen F. GhiglieriExecutive Vice President, Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

UNITED STATES,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant-Appellant

______________________

2018-1487

______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of International 

Trade in No. 1:10-cv-00179-RKE, Senior Judge Richard K. 

Eaton.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

MARCELLA POWELL, International Trade Field Office, 

Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United 

States Department of Justice, New York, NY, argued for 

plaintiff-appellee. Also represented by AMY RUBIN; JEANNE 

DAVIDSON, JOSEPH H. HUNT, Washington, DC; BRANDON 

ROGERS, Office of Assistant Chief Counsel, United States

Customs and Border Protection, Indianapolis, IN. 

 HERBERT C. SHELLEY, Steptoe & Johnson, LLP, 
Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellant. Also 

represented by MARK FREDERICK HORNING. 

______________________

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

 PER CURIAM (PROST, Chief Judge, NEWMAN and 

MOORE, Circuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

 September 6, 2019 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

 Date Peter R. Marksteiner

 Clerk of Court
### NUMBER 13

- 19

- 000 6 9

- CV


## COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

- EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________ CALLE NARANJO, LLC , A ppellant ,

v.
RAUL COSS BU AND CON STRUCTORA COSS BU, S.A. DE C.V. , A ppellees

.

____________________________________________________________

On a ppeal from the 206th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________



## MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Hinojosa

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Benavides

Appellant, Calle Naranjo, LLC
, filed an accelerated appeal from an order entered
by the 206th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas, in cause number C

- 4616

- 15

- D

. Appellant h as filed a n unopposed motion to dismiss the appeal on grounds the appeal is

now moot. Appellant request s that this Court dismiss the appeal.2

The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant ’s unopposed

motion to di smiss the appeal, is of the opinion that the motion should be granted. See

T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.1(a). Appellant ’s motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is
hereby DISMISSED. Costs will be taxed against appellant. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.1(d)
("Absen t agreement of the parties, the court will tax costs against the appellant.").
Having dismissed the appeal at appellant ’s request, no motion for rehearing will be
entertained, and our mandate will issue forthwith.

GINA M. BENAVIDES
, Justice

D elivered and filed the 30t h day of May , 20 19

.
form10k08ex10at.htm


    AMENDMENT
TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

    


    The
Taubman Company LLC (formerly known as The Taubman Company Limited Partnership)
(the “Company”) and Lisa A. Payne (“Payne”) agree to amend Payne’s January 3,
1997 Employment Agreement (the “Agreement”) for compliance with Section 409A of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (“Section 409A”) as
follows:

     

    1.  As
used in the Agreement, “termination of employment” and similar terms means a
“separation from service” as that term is defined under Section
409A.

     

    2.  Any
reimbursement of a taxable expense or in-kind benefit made by the Company under
the Agreement, will be made no later than on or before the end of the calendar
year following the calendar year in which an expense was incurred, will not
affect the expenses eligible for reimbursement in any other calendar year, and
cannot be liquidated or exchanged for any other benefit.

     

    Payne and the Company have duly
executed this Amendment by their signatures below, effective
immediately.

    


    
      	
               

               

              Signed: /s/ Lisa A.
      Payne                   
                                                                     

              Lisa A. Payne

               

              Dated:  December
      22, 2008

               

               

            	
              THE
      TAUBMAN COMPANY LLC

               

              By: /s/ Chris B.
      Heaphy                   
                                                           

               

              Its:Senior
      Vice President, General Counsel

              and Secretary

               

              Dated:  December
      19, 2008

               

            


    

    


    


     

    DETROIT.3438119.1