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





The
undersigned, Xianfu Han, the Chief Executive Officer of CHINA ADVANCED
CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS GROUP, INC. (the “Company”), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY
that:





1.      The
Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2009
(the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





2.      Information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operation of the Company.





IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned has executed this statement this 16th
day of November, 2009.





/s/
      Xianfu HanXianfu
      HanChief
      Executive Officer(Principal
      Executive Officer)





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
China Advanced Construction Materials Group, Inc. and will be retained by China
Advanced Construction Materials Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





The
forgoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission pursuant to § 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not being filed for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether
made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation
language in such filing.
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 542

To approve a governing international fishery agreement between the United

States and the People’s Republic of China.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 17, 1995

Mr. SAXTON (by request) introduced the following bill; which was referred to

the Committee on Resources

A BILL

To approve a governing international fishery agreement between the United States and the People’s Republic of

China.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. AGREEMENT WITH PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF

4 CHINA.

5 Notwithstanding section 203 of the Magnuson Fish6 ery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1823),

7 the governing international fishery agreement between the

8 Government of the United States of America and the Gov9 ernment of the People’s Republic of China, as contained

10 in the message to Congress from the President of the
2

•HR 542 IH

1 United States dated September 20, 1994, is approved as

2 a governing international fishery agreement for the pur3 poses of such Act and shall enter into force and effect

4 with respect to the United States on the date of enactment

5 of this Act.

Æ
#### REX CREDIT CO., Inc., v. EUMONT et al.*

No. 14136.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

March 7, 1932.

J. A. Morales, of New Orleans, for appel-larit.

Arthur B. Leopold, of New Orleans, for appellee.

*

Rehearing denied April 4, 1932.

PER CURIAM.

We are asked to dismiss this appeal because of alleged acquiescence in the judgment appealed from.

Plaintiff, appellee, sought judgment against defendant, appellant, together with another defendant, who has not appealed, in the sum of $150, with interest and costs. Judgment was rendered for $139.61, with interest and costs.

After the judgment was rendered appellant paid to appellee, without reservation of any kind, the principal amount of the judgment, to wit, $139.61, and it is this payment which is now pointed to as constituting acquiescence by appellant in the judgment.

Appellant contends that he has always admitted an indebtedness of $139.61, and that, since the only matter placed in controversy by the appeal was the question of liability for interest and costs, no acquiescence in the judgment, as a whole, resulted from the payment of the sum which has always been admitted, and. which he (appellant) has always been ready and willing to pay.

Appellant admits that at no time prior to the filing of suit did he tender to plaintiff the sum now admitted to be due, and he sought to overcome in the court below the effect of this failure by the contention that, since plaintiff was never willing to accept $139.61, he (defendant) was not required to make a useless tender of that sum.

,[1] Whether the judgment should have been for $139.61, without interest and costs, or whether those items were properly included, are the very questions which are presented by the appeal, and we cannot, on motion to dismiss, look into the correctness of the judgment appealed from.

That judgment is indivisible and, by payment of a part, without reservation as to his rights to continue his appeal on the other parts, It is very evident that appellant has acquiesced therein. Succession of DeEgana, 18 La. Ann. 59; Williams v. Duer, 14 La. 523; State v. Judge, 4 Rob. (La.) 85; Campbell v. Orillion, 3 La. Ann. 115; Fluhart v. Golding, 7 La. Ann. 233; Landry v. Connely, 4 Rob. (La.) 127; Rouge v. Lafargue Bros. Co., 49 La. Ann. 1001, 22 So. 190; Flowers v. Hughes, 46 La. Ann. 439, 15 So. 14; Stinson v. O’Neal, 32 La. Ann. 947; Cobb v. Hynes, 4 La. Ann. 150; Succession of Kaiser, 48 La. Ann. 973, 20 So. 184; Jolley v. Vivian Oil Co., 131 La. 937, 60 So. 622.

Since we believe that there has been acquiescence in the judgment, it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that this appeal be, and it is, dismissed, at the cost of appellant.

Appeal dismissed.
## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS OF TE XAS N O . P D - 0594- 09 BILL Y R A Y BR Y A N T, A ppe l l ant

v . THE S TA TE OF TE X AS O N R EH EA R I N G O F A PPE LL A N T ’ S PET I TI ON FOR DI S CRETI ON ARY REVI EW FROM THE S I XT H CO URT O F AP PEALS

RED RI VER CO UNTY P ercur iam . O P I N I O N A p p e lla n t w a s c o n v ic te d o f c ap ita l m u rd e ra n d s e n te n c e d to c o n f in e m e n t f

o r l if e . T h e C o u rto f

A p p e a ls a f

f irm e d th e c o n v ic tio n . B r yant v. State , ___S. W . 3d___ ( T ex. A pp.

— T exarkana, N o. 06- 08- 00037- C R , del i ver ed M ar ch 13, 2009 ) . A ppel l ant ’ s pet i t i on for di s cr et i onaryr evi ew w as di s m i s s ed as unt i m el yfi l ed on A ugus t19, 2009. A ppel l anthas fi l ed a mot i on forr ehea r i ng r eques t i ng r ei ns t at ementof hi s pet i t i on s o thati tw i l l beB r yant- 2 cons i der ed bythi s C ourt . A ppel l ant ’ s m ot i on forr ehea r i ng i s gr ant ed. H i s pet i t i on fi l ed o n M ay2 6 , 2 0 0 9 , is r eins tat ed as o f O ctob er 7 , 2 0 0 9 , an d w il l be c o n side red in ac co rd w i th T ex. R . A pp. P. 68. T he copi es m us tbe fi l ed i n T H I S C ourtbyO ct ober14, 2009.

D el i ver ed O ct ober7, 2009 D o n ot publi sh
**Exhibit 31.1**CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(A) OF THE EXCHANGE ACTI, Panagiotis Zafet, Chief Executive Officer and Co-Chairman of the Board of Seanergy MaritimeCorp., certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Seanergy Maritime Corp.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:     a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;     b. evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and     c. disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors:     a. all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and     b. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.   Date:November 14, 2007 /s/ Panagiotis Zafet     Panagiotis Zafet  (Principal Executive Officer)
20
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Science Foundation

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting: 

*Name*: Astronomy and Astrophysics Advisory Committee (#13883).                     

*Date and Time:*                         October 14-15, 2008, 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m.                     

Place: National Science Foundation, Room 555, Stafford II Building, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA, 22230. 

*Type of Meeting:*                         Open.                     

*Contact Person*: Dr. Craig Foltz, Acting Director, Division of Astronomical Sciences, Suite 1045, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230. Telephone: 703-292-4909.                     

*Purpose of Meeting*: To provide advice and recommendations to the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) on issues within the field of astronomy and astrophysics that are of mutual interest and concern to the agencies.                     

*Agenda*: To hear presentations of current programming by representatives from NSF, NASA, DOE and other agencies relevant to astronomy and astrophysics; to discuss current and potential areas of cooperation between the agencies; to formulate recommendations for continued and new areas of cooperation and mechanisms for achieving them.                     

Dated: August 8, 2008. 

Susanne E. Bolton, 

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. E8-18694 Filed 8-12-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 584 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  1st Session
                                H. R. 584

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey a fish hatchery to 
                           the State of Iowa.
    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. CONVEYANCE OF THE FAIRPORT NATIONAL FISH HATCHERY TO THE 
              STATE OF IOWA.

    (a) Conveyance.--Within 180 days after the date of the enactment of 
this Act, the Secretary of the Interior
shall convey to the State of Iowa without reimbursement all right, 
title, and interest of the United States in and to the fish hatchery 
described in subsection (b) for use by the State for purposes of 
fishery resources management.
    (b) Hatchery Described.--The fish hatchery described in subsection 
(a) is the Fairport National Fish Hatchery located in Muscatine County, 
Iowa, adjacent to State Highway 22 west of Davenport, Iowa, including 
all real property, improvements to real property, and personal 
property.
    (c) Use and Reversionary Interest.--The property conveyed to the 
State of Iowa pursuant to this section shall be used by the State for 
purposes of fishery resources management, and if it is used for any 
other purpose all right, title, and interest in and to all property 
conveyed pursuant to this section shall revert to the United States.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 7, 1995.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
104th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 584

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey a fish hatchery to 
                           the State of Iowa.
```
179 La. 53

#### CALDWELL v. LAUREL GROVE CO. (THIBODAUX BOILER WORKS, Inc., Intervener).

No. 31899.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 29, 1934.

*18Feitel & Feitel and John E. Parker, all of New Orleans, and Harvey Peltier, of Thibo-daux, for intervener appellant.

Miller, Bloch & Martin, of New Orleans, for plaintiff appellee.

ST. PAUL, Justice.

Plaintiff obtained judgment against defendant for $25,000 with interest, attorney’s fees, and costs and thereupon issued a writ of fieri facias, under which he seized and caused to be sold a large and miscellaneous lot of personal property belonging to the defendant.

Before the writ of fieri facias issued, in-tervener had taken out an attachment against the defendant under which the sheriff had seized part of the property which was after-wards seized under the writ of fieri facias.

When the property seized was about to be sold, intervener came in by rule, asserting the prior attachment and his privilege thereunder and praying that the funds to be derived from the sale be *held*subject to the order of court and that his claim thereon be preferred to that of plaintiff by reason' of his own having been the first seizure.

But he did not ask that the property attached be separately sold or separately appraised ; and all the property seized under the fi. fa. was appraised in globo and sold for a lump sum-; plaintiff becoming the purchaser.

The trial judge held, and we think cor‘rectly, that intervener was not entitled to a preference, by reason of having failed to ask for a separate sale or separate appraisement of the property seized under the attachment and afterwards sold for a lump sum with all the rest of the property seized under the writ of fieri facias.

The proceeds of the property sold under a writ of fieri facias primarily belong to the judgment creditor at whose instance the writ of fieri facias issued, and whoever claims a preference over said proceeds must show that he is entitled to such preference and must take all the necessary steps to preserve the same.

It has been the uniform jurisprudence of this court that an intervener or opponent who claims or is entitled to a preference on only a part of the px’operty under seizure must demand a separate sale of such property or at least a separate appraisement thereof if a separate sale be not feasible. Hibernia Bank v. Knoll Planting & Mfg. Co., 133 La. 242, 62 So. 663; Sundberry v. Bertie Sugar Company, 145 La. 700, 82 So. 857; Baton Rouge Rice Mill v. Fairbanks, Morse & Co., 164 La. 729, 114 So. 633. The reason is that without such separate sale or appraisement it is impossible to determine the proportionate share of the proceeds to which such inter-vener is entitled.

As to the proposition that the property sold under the writ of fieri facias passed to the purchaser burdened with the privilege resulting from the attachment, that can have no application here where the intervener consented to the sale by claiming the proceeds thereof.

Decree.

For the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

O’NIELL, C. J., absent.
**Exhibit 32**

 

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

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 Mondo Acquisition III, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Thomas A. Rose, 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 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. |
|-----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

 

||
||
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-1055

DONALD BURRELL; APRIL BURRELL; 911 RESTORATION OF 

BALTIMORE, INC.,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v.

911 RESTORATION FRANCHISE, INC.; IDAN SHPIZEAR; PELEG LINDENBERG; 

SHAY KALMANOVICH,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. 

James K. Bredar, Chief District Judge. (1:17-cv-02278-JKB)

Submitted: July 19, 2018 Decided: August 3, 2018

Before KING, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Harry Martin Rifkin, LAW OFFICES OF HARRY M. RIFKIN, Baltimore, Maryland, for 

Appellants. James E. Dickerman, ECCLESTON AND WOLF, P.C., Hanover, Maryland, 

for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellants seek to appeal the district court’s order dismissing their case and 

compelling arbitration. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice 

of appeal was not timely filed.

Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment 

or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the 

appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. 

App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional 

requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on November 17, 2017. The 

notice of appeal was filed on December 26, 2017. Because Appellants failed to file a 

timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we 

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument 

would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
COURT OF APPEALS OF 

VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Fitzpatrick, Overton and Senior Judge Duff 

Argued at Alexandria, Virginia 

MOBIL OIL CORPORATION AND INSURANCE 

 COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 2830-96-4 BY JUDGE CHARLES H. DUFF 

 JULY 22, 1997 

WALTER E. HURST 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA 

WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 Lisa C. Healey (Siciliano, Ellis, Dyer & 

Boccarosse, on brief), for appellants. 

 John J. O'Donnell, Jr., for appellee. 

 Mobil Oil Corporation and Insurance Company of the State of 

Pennsylvania appeal a decision of the Workers' Compensation 

Commission that Walter E. Hurst (claimant) had a continuing 

disability and that claimant adequately marketed his residual 

capacity. We uphold both findings and affirm the commission. 

 On review, we construe the evidence in the light most 

favorable to the party prevailing below. See R.G. Moore Bldg. 

Corp. v. Mullins, 10 Va. App. 211, 212, 390 S.E.2d 788, 788 

(1990). Factual findings of the commission will be upheld on 

appeal if supported by credible evidence. See James v. Capitol 

Steel Constr. Co., 8 Va. App. 512, 515, 382 S.E.2d 487, 488 

(1989). "The fact that there is contrary evidence in the record 

 

 *Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not 

designated for publication. 
 2 

is of no consequence if there is credible evidence to support the 

commission's finding." Wagner Enters., Inc. V. Brooks, 12 Va. 

App. 890, 894, 407 S.E.2d 32, 35 (1991). 

 I. 

 On August 17, 1994, claimant injured his neck while working 

for Mobil Oil. Claimant was treated by several doctors, some of 

whom recommended claimant's release to full duty with no 

restrictions. However, claimant underwent an independent medical 

examination with Dr. Neil Kahanovitz on April 24, 1995. On a 

Virginia Employment Commission's Request for Physician's 

Certificate of Health form, dated January 23, 1996, Dr. 

Kahanovitz wrote that claimant could perform light to sedentary 

work with no heavy lifting, bending or repetitive twisting. On 

February 21, 1996, Dr. Roger Gisolfi restricted claimant's 

ability to work stating that claimant should not handle weights 

more than twenty pounds. 

 Based on the reports of Drs. Kahanovitz and Gisolfi, the 

full commission found "that the evidence preponderates that the 

claimant remains unable to perform all his duties as an 

automobile mechanic." Because credible evidence supports this 

finding, we affirm the commission. 

 II. 

 At the hearing before the deputy commissioner, claimant 

testified that he made "[a]t least four or five" contacts a week 

in his attempt to market his residual work capacity. The full 
 3 

commission found that claimant "sufficiently marketed his 

residual capacity." The commission's finding is supported by 

credible evidence, i.e., claimant's testimony, and will not be 

disturbed on appeal. 

 Accordingly, we affirm the commission. 

 Affirmed.