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 March 31, 2010
(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 this17th
day of May, 2010.





/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.
**Exhibit
      32.2**





**Certification
      Pursuant to**


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


**as
      Adopted Pursuant to**


**Section
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**





In
      connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Panhandle Eastern Pipe
      Line
      Company, LP (the "Company") for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
      Richard N. Marshall, as Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of
      the
      Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that (i) the Report fully complies with
      the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
      1934, as amended; and (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly
      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.





/s/   RICHARD
      N. MARSHALL


Name:
      Richard N. Marshall


Title:   Senior
      Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


Date:   August
      9, 2007














This
      Certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to
      18
      U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
      2002, and shall not be deemed “filed” by the Company for purposes of Section 18
      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and shall not be
      incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company 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 Section 906, or other documents
      authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
      in typed form within the electronic version 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.
#### Fischer *v.*Riehl, Appellant.

*Equity*— Equity *jurisdiction*— Account—Principal *and agent.*

A bill in equity by a principal against an agent for an account is prima facie cognizable in equity, and the jurisdiction of equity is not subsequently ousted by the fact that the substantial contest between the parties finally narrows down to a single item.

Argued Nov. 4, 1907.

Appeal, No. 126, Oct. T., 1907, by defendant, from decree of C. P. No. 3, Allegheny Co., Nov. T., 1905, No. 425, on bill in equity in case of George Fischer, Executor of John Fischer, deceased, v. Leonard Riehl.

Before Mitchell, C. J., Fell, Brown, Mestrezat, Potter and Stewart, JJ.

Affirmed.

Bill in equity for an account.

Before Kennedy, P. J.

From the record it appeared that John Fischer and the defendant, Leonard Riehl, stood in the relation of father-in-law and son-in-law to each other. Riehl was also Fischer’s agent under a power of attorney. The bill sought for an accounting for various items, but the contest finally narrowed down to the question as to whether Riehl was entitled to retain for his services $2,000 out of moneys which he had collected. The court disallowed the claim and entered a decree against the defendant for $2,000.

*Error assigned*was the decree of the court.

*Wm. M. Hall,*with him *O. P. Metcalf,*for appellant.

— The plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law either in assumpsit or *506trespass, and, the account being unilateral, not complicated, and not requiring discovery, equity has no jurisdiction: Paton v. Clark, 156 Pa. 49; Graham v. Cummings, 208 Pa. *516;*Holland v. Hallahan, 211 Pa. 223.

*Samuel*McClay, of *Reed, Smith, Shaw & Beal,*with him *Alexander Gilfillan,*for appellee.

A bill in equity for an account can be maintained in this case: Bredin v. Kingland, 4 Watts, 420; McFadden v. Sallada, 6 Pa. 283; Reeside v. Reeside, 49 Pa. 322.

January 6, 1908:

Per Curiam,

The bill being by a principal against an agent for an account was prima facie cognizable in equity. As stated by the . learned judge below, the bill was “ filed to compel an accounting by the defendant, not only of the moneys collected under the power of attorney mentioned, but also of the investments named ; and it is sought in said account to have the defendant surcharged with the investments claimed to be worthless.” There was no denial of the duty to account but a dispute as to some of the items of plaintiff’s claim, and an averment of a settlement. The issue, therefore, was one calling for an account, and the fact that the substantial contest finally narrowed down to a single item did not oust the jurisdiction of equity which had attached on the face of the pleadings.

Decree affirmed.
178 La. 541

#### STATE v. GARRITY.

No. 32494.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 27, 1933.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 2, 1934.

Daly & Hamlin, Mahoney & Rose, and Gill & Simon, all of New Orleans, for appellant.

Gaston L. Porterie, Atty. Gen., and Eugene Stanley,' Dist. Atty., and George J. Gulotta and J. Bernard Cocke, Asst. Dist. Attys., all of New Orleans, for the State.

O’NIELL, Chief Justice.

The defendant has appealed from a conviction and a sentence of imprisonment in the penitentiary for the crime of assault and robbery. He complains, in two bills of exception, that the district attorney said, in his opening statement to the jury, that the state intended to prove that, when Garrity was arrested, in Miami, Ariz., he asked the arresting officer what he wanted with him, and the officer replied, “I don’t want you, but New Orleans wants you for a bank job,” and that Garrity replied, “Well, I guess you’ve got the right man.”

 It is contended that Garrity’s statement to the officer who arrested him was a confession, and that the district attorney should not have disclosed to the jury, before proving that the alleged confession was made freely and voluntarily, that the state intended to offer thé confession. in evidence. The statement which Garrity is said to have made to the officer who arrested him was, substantially if not in fact, a confession. But, according to article 333 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the district attorney, in his opening statement to the jury, must explain not only the nature of the charge against the defendant, but also *the evidence 6y which he expects to establish the same.*State v. Ducre, 173 La. 438, 137 So. 745. And. when the evidence, or a part of the evidence, by which the district attorney intends to prove the charge against the defendant, is a confession made by the defendant, the district attorney must sb inform the judge and jury in his opening *78statement. State v. Silsby, 176 La. 727, 146 So. 684; State v. Elmore, 177 La. 877, 149 So. 507. In both of those cases it was said that the opinions of the judges and law-writers on the subject in other jurisdictions were of no importance in Louisiana, because of the mandatory provisions of article 333 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

In a motion for a new trial the defendant’s attorneys contended also that the verdict was contrary to the law and the evidence, and that the jury had failed to give the defendant the benefit of a reasonable doubt, or of the presumption of innocence; but these complaints are merely that the evidence was not sufficient to prove the defendant’s guilt; and that is a question of which this court has not jurisdiction.

The conviction and sentence are affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1





Certification of Principal Executive 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 BLS Media, Inc. a Nevada corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Brittany Prager, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of her knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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.





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





/s/ Brittany PragerBrittany Prager

Chief Executive Officer

May 14, 2010
#### Louie A. White v. State.

No. 24993.

December 6, 1950.

*304
      *Price, Gant & McDaniel,*by *Vernon McDaniel,*Wichita Falls, for appellant.

*George P. Blackburn,*State’s Attorney, Austin, for the state.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Attempting to pass a forged check is the offense; the punishment, five years in the penitentiary.

The count in the indictment upon which this conviction rests charges that appellant, knowing it to be forged, attempted to pass a forged check to one Smith.

All the testimony shows that the check was presented and attempted to be passed to one Brown, who was an employee of the store of which Smith was the assistant manager.

This constitutes a fatal variance between the allegations of the indictment and the proof. Brown v. State, 71 Tex. Cr. R. 45, 158 S. W. 533; Crisp v. State, 144 Tex. Cr. R. 163 S. W. 2d 209.

The state’s attorney before this court concedes the variance.

The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.

Opinion approved by the court.
# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 4- 21 33

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.
Ada n Zar at e-Co ba in
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ctof Ne br as ka - Lin co ln

__ __ __ __ __ __ Subm it te d: Octo be r 22 , 20 14 Fi le d: Octo be r 23 , 20 14 [Unpubl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re LOKEN, MELLOY , and GRUENDER, Circu it Ju dg es
.

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM.

Ada n Zarat e-Co ba in di rect ly ap pe al s th e be lo w-Gui de li ne s- ran ge se nt en ce th e di st ric t cou rt im

po se d afte r he pl ed gu il ty to a drug ch arg e. His co un se l has fil ed a 1

The Hon or ab le Ri ch ard G. Kop f, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct 1 of Nebr as ka

.b r i ef un de r Ander s v. Ca li fo rn ia , 38 6 U.S. 73 8 (1 96 7) , ch al le ng in g th e subs ta nt i v e
reas on ab le ne ss of Zarat e-Co ba in ’s se nt en c e. In ad di ti on , co un se l se ek s le av e to wit hd raw.

U p on care fu l rev ie w, we co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t im po s e a n
un reas on ab le se nt en ce. Se e Uni te d St at es v. Feems te r , 5 72 F.3 d 45 5, 46 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (en ba nc ) (d es cri bi ng ap pe ll at e rev ie w of se nt en ci ng de ci si on s) ; Uni te d St at es
v. La za rs ki , 56 0 F.3 d 73 1, 73 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (wh ere di st ric t co ur t va rie d do wnwar d fro m Gui de li ne s ran ge , it was “ ne arl y in co nc ei va bl e” th at co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n in no t va ry in g do wnwar d fu rth er). Fi na ll y , ha vi ng in de pe nd en tl y rev ie wed th e reco rd pu rs ua nt to Pen so n v. Ohi o , 48 8 U.S. 75 (1 98 8) , we fin d no no nf riv ol ou s is su es
. Acco rd in gl y , we gra ntco un se l’s m ot io n t o wi th dr aw, an d we a ffi rm th e jud gm en t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-2

-
EXHIBIT 31.1



Certification Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



I, John E. Martin, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Acceptance Insurance Companies Inc.;



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;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and 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 and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, 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 financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most
recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



5. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.



Date: August 12, 2003



| |  | /s/  John E. Martin                  
| |  | -------------------------------------
| |  | John E. Martin                       
| |  | President and Chief Executive Officer



34
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED February 17, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-10955 Conference Calendar

JOHNIE WISE, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus L.E. FLEMING, Warden, Federal Medical Center - Fort Worth, Respondent-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:03-CV-224-Y

-------------------- Before HIGGINBOTHAM, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Johnie Wise, federal inmate #82281-079, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. A jury convicted Wise of two counts of threatening to use a weapon of mass destruction and aiding and abetting. United States v. Wise , 221 F.3d 140, 147 (5th Cir. 2000). The district court sentenced Wise to concurrent terms of 292 months of imprisonment and five years of supervised release. Id.No. 03-10955 -2- Wise asserts that his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition satisfied the criteria necessary to proceed under the “savings clause” of 28 U.S.C. § 2255. He contends that his petition raised a novel issue concerning the Government’s alleged failure to establish commercial injury. Wise asserts that commercial injury is an essential element of the crime of conviction. He argues that novel claims can never be procedurally barred and that 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective because it does not offer a remedy. He contends that the district court’s dismissal of his petition amounts to an unconstitutional suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. Wise has not met his burden of showing that the remedy provided under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention. Wesson v. U.S. Penitentiary Beaumont, TX , 305 F.3d 343, 347 (5th Cir. 2002), cert. denied , 537 U.S. 1241 (2003). He has not identified a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision which establishes that he may have been imprisoned for conduct that was not prohibited by law. He has not shown that his claims were foreclosed by circuit law when the claims should have been raised, i.e. , at his trial, on appeal, or in an initial 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Wesson , 305 F.3d at 347. We have rejected previously Wise’s Suspension Clause argument. See id. at 346-47. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 99.1



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 Annual Report of Koppers Inc. (the Company)
on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Walter W. Turner, Chief 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:



| | (1) |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | (2) |  | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------









|                                                      
|------------------------------------------------------
|/s/  WALTER W.
TURNER                                 
|Walter W. Turner Chief Executive Officer March 5, 2003
Document

Exhibit 10.17



																					
							
							
	SCHEDULE OF EXECUTIVES WITH MANAGEMENT CONTINUITY AGREEMENTS						
							
	Title		Name		Years / Comp*		Excise Tax Gross Up?
	Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer	 	Robert M. Patterson	 	3	 	Y
	Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer	 	Bradley C. Richardson	 	2	 	N
	Senior Vice President, Chief Commercial Officer	 	Michael A. Garratt	 	2	 	N
	Senior Vice President, President of Distribution		Scott J. Horn		2		N
	Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary	 	Lisa K. Kunkle	 	3	 	Y
	Senior Vice President, Global Operations and Process Improvement	 	M. John Midea, Jr.	 	2	 	N
	Senior Vice President, President of Color, Additives and Inks	 	Woon Keat Moh	 	2	 	N
	Senior Vice President, President of Specialty Engineered Materials	 	Christopher L. Pederson	 	2	 	N
	Senior Vice President, Mergers & Acquisitions	 	Joel R. Rathbun	 	2	 	N
	Senior Vice President, Chief Human Resources Officer	 	João José San Martin Neto	 	2	 	N


* Years of compensation payable upon change of control
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS, CASH FLOWS AND SHAREHOLDERS EQUITY FOR THE YEAR ENDED
DECEMBER 31, 1995 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        34,326
<OTHER-SE>                                    (29,910)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                         15,181
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                15,181
<CGS>                                           11,980
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   11,980
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    77
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  69
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,888)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,888)
<DISCONTINUED>                                     505
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,386)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.30)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.30)


</TABLE>