alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.1  Certification of the President 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 RuiTai International Holdings Co. Ltd. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Dian Min Ma, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) 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/ Dian Min MaChief Executive Officer Date: August 14, 2009
<PAGE>


                                                                      EXHIBIT 32


                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                       AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the Annual Report of John Q. Hammons Hotels, L.P.
and John Q. Hammons Hotels Finance Corporation III on Form 10-K for the fiscal
year ended January 2, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, we, John Q. Hammons, Chief Executive Officer, and Paul E. Muellner,
Chief Financial Officer, 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 Annual Report fully complies with the requirements of
                  Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         2.       The information contained in the Annual Report fairly
                  presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
                  and results of operation of John Q. Hammons Hotels, L.P. and
                  John Q. Hammons Hotels Finance Corporation III.


         A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to John Q. Hammons Hotels, L.P. and John Q. Hammons Hotels Finance
Corporation III and will be retained by John Q. Hammons Hotels, L.P. and John Q.
Hammons Hotels Finance Corporation III and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its Staff upon request.


Dated: April 1, 2004

                                 /s/ John Q. Hammons
                                ------------------------------------------------
                                John Q. Hammons, Chief Executive Officer,
                                John Q. Hammons Hotels Finance Corporation III
                                and John Q. Hammons Hotels, Inc., general
                                partner of John Q. Hammons Hotels, L.P.


                                /s/ Paul E. Muellner
                                ------------------------------------------------
                                Paul E. Muellner, Chief Financial Officer,
                                John Q. Hammons Hotels Finance Corporation III
                                and John Q. Hammons Hotels, Inc., general
                                partner of John Q. Hammons Hotels, L.P.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

November 2 , 2018 

# Order

Clerk November 2 , 2018

158153

GAIL GIRERD, P ersonal R epresentative of

the ESTATE OF CHRISTOPHE GIRERD

, Plaintiff

- Appellee

, SC: 15 81 53

v COA: 336818

Wayne CC: 15

- 013440

- NO

SANA ENERGY & MANAGEMENT, INC.,

and MY05, LLC,

Defendants

- Appellants

.

________ ______________________________ /

On order of the Chief Justice, the stipulation signed by counsel for the parties

a greeing to the dismissal of the application for leave to appeal is considered, and the

application for leave to appeal is DISMISSED with prejudice and without costs to either

party.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998             SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         $14,868                $859,293
<SECURITIES>                                        $0                      $0
<RECEIVABLES>                               $9,729,664              $7,444,688
<ALLOWANCES>                                        $0                      $0
<INVENTORY>                                 $9,435,504              $8,573,660
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           $19,687,907             $17,420,968
<PP&E>                                     $18,737,412             $18,256,455
<DEPRECIATION>                             $13,334,948             $12,688,767
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             $25,536,525             $23,671,576
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      $13,460,894             $12,634,396
<BONDS>                                     $2,045,926              $2,833,132
<COMMON>                                      $174,926                $174,926
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               $0                      $0
<PREFERRED>                                         $0                      $0
<OTHER-SE>                                 $10,585,417              $8,480,829
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               $25,536,525             $23,671,576
<SALES>                                    $14,151,087             $12,217,141
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           $15,538,164             $12,273,597
<CGS>                                       $8,659,796              $7,450,825
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               $9,499,796              $7,450,825
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              $555,778                $553,398
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    $0                      $0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            $369,466                $426,659
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             $2,625,875              $1,271,305
<INCOME-TAX>                                  $912,694                $508,522
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         $1,713,181                $762,783
<DISCONTINUED>                                      $0                      $0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     $0                      $0
<CHANGES>                                           $0                      $0
<NET-INCOME>                                $1,713,181                $762,783
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    $3.30                   $1.47
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    $3.30                   $1.47
        

</TABLE>
#### Fred RAYBON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida. Division B.

Oct. 15, 1954.

J. C. Bodiford, Panama City, for appellant.

Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., John S. Lloyd, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We have examined the transcript of testimony in this case, and find that the evidence against the appellant Fred Raybon is entirely circumstantial in character. It is concluded that the conviction of this appellant upon the circumstantial evidence herein cannot be sustained because, although the proof might be said to be consistent with his guilt, we cannot hold that it is inconsistent with any other hypothesis. Nor do we find it to be “of a conclusive character, pointing directly and unerringly to the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt”, but, on the contrary, we believe that it does not go beyond “mere suspicion, probabilities or suppositions”. See Lyons v. State, Fla., 47 So.2d 541, 542.

Reversed and remanded for new trial on authority of Lyons v. State, supra. See also Kilbee v. State, Fla., 53 So.2d 533.

ROBERTS, C. J., and TPIOMAS, HOB-SON and DREW, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 4.2


 


Consent of Independent Registered
Public Accounting Firm


We have issued our
report dated February 21, 2020, with respect to the financial statement of Advisors Disciplined Trust 2004 contained in Amendment
No. 1 to the Registration Statement on Form S-6 (File No. 333-236352) and related Prospectus. We consent to the use of the aforementioned
report in the Registration Statement and Prospectus, and to the use of our name as it appears under the caption “Experts”.


 


/s/ Grant
Thornton LLP


 


Chicago, Illinois


February 21, 2020
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**P&F INDUSTRIES, INC.**

**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 P&F Industries, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Joseph A. Molino, Jr., Principal Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, that:

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

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

 
| /s/ Joseph A. Molino, Jr.   |   |
|-----------------------------|--------|
| Joseph A. Molino, Jr.       |
| Principal Financial Officer |
| August 11, 2006             |

 

----
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A19A0768. SHENARD SMITH v. THE STATE.

A jury found Shenard Smith guilty of multiple offenses, including murder.

Following the denial of his motion for new trial, Smith appealed to this Court. We,

however, lack jurisdiction.

Under our Constitution, the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction over

“[a]ll cases in which a sentence of death was imposed or could be imposed.” See Ga.

Const. of 1983, Art. VI, Sec. VI, Par. III (8). Because a penalty of death can be

imposed for the crime of murder, jurisdiction is proper in the Supreme Court. See

OCGA § 17-10- 30 (b); Neal v. State, 290 Ga. 563, 572 (722 SE2d 765) (2012)

(Hunstein, J., concurring);see also State v. Thornton, 253 Ga. 524, 524 (1) (322 SE2d

711) (1984) (directing this Court to transfer “all cases in which either a sentence of

death or of life imprisonment has been imposed upon conviction of murder”).

Accordingly, Smith’s appeal is hereby TRANSFERRED to the Supreme Court for

disposition.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

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.

December 10, 2018

12/10/2018
Exhibit 33.1.2

 

**[Letterhead of WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK]**

 

**SERVICER’S REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE**

 

Washington Mutual Bank (the “Asserting Party”) is responsible for assessing compliance as of December 31, 2006 and for the period from January 1, 2006 through December 31, 2006 (the “Reporting Period”) of the Platform Transactions (as defined below) with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB (12 CFR part 229.1122), except the following criteria 1(iii) and 3(i)(C) and (D), which we have concluded are either (i) not applicable to the servicing of the mortgage loans included in the Platform Transactions (each, a “Mortgage Loan”), or (ii) performed by other parties with respect to the Mortgage Loans (such criteria, after giving effect to the foregoing exceptions, the “Applicable Servicing Criteria”)**.**  The transactions covered by this Servicer’s Assessment are those securitizations of pools of mortgage loans that were completed on or after January 1, 2006 and prior to January 1, 2007 for which the Asserting Party performed servicing functions set forth in Item 1122(d), that included one or more classes of publicly offered securities registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933, and for which the Asserting Party has an obligation to deliver an Assessment of Compliance pursuant to Item 1122 (the “Platform Transactions”).

 

The Asserting Party has assessed its compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Period, using the Applicable Servicing Criterion, and has concluded that it has complied in all material respects with the Applicable Servicing Criteria with respect to the Mortgage Loans. 

 

Deloitte & Touche LLP, a registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report on the Asserting Party’s assessment of compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Period.

 

Dated:  March 14, 2007

 

WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK

 

By: ___*/s/ H. John Berens*

Name:  H. John Berens

| Title: | Senior Vice President |
|--------|-----------------------|
GRANT MICHAEL CAMADINE,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D15-2852

_____________________________/

Opinion filed November 3, 2015.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Mark J. Borello, Judge.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public 

Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, C.J., BENTON and KELSEY, JJ., CONCUR.
#### Ernesto D. DEVERATURDA, Petitioner, v. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, Respondent.

No. 02-3373.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Oct. 29, 2002.

ORDER

The petitioner having failed to pay the docketing fee required by Federal Circuit Rule 52(a)(1) and to file the required Statement Concerning Discrimination, it is

ORDERED that the petition for review be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED, *984for failure to prosecute in accordance with the rules.
EXHIBIT 32.1



---



CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

I,
Jimmy S.H. Lee, Chief Executive Officer of Mercer International Inc. (the "Company"), certify pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



|                      |  |  |                                                        
|--------------------- |  |  | -------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: August 9, 2004 |  |  |                                                        
|                      |  |  |                                                        
|                      |  |  | /s/JIMMY S.H. LEEJimmy S.H. Lee
Chief Executive Officer



---

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

---



QuickLinks
Order entered September 19, 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas** No. 05 - 13 - 00641 - CV JERRON C. HILL, M.D. , ET AL., Appellant s V. TX - AN ANESTHESIA MANAGE MENT, LLP, ET AL . , Appellee s On Appeal from the 192nd Judicial Distric t Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC - 11 - 07088 - K 

### O RDER The Court has before it appellees’ September 17, 2013 joint motion for extension of time to file their answering briefs, which is unopposed

. The Court GRANTS the motion and ORDERS ap pellees to file their briefs by October 30, 2013.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE
Exhibit 4.36

 

Equity participation in Renova: summary of the Investment Agreement

 

On August 8, 2013 Cemig GT signed an Investment Agreement with Light Energia, RR Participações and Renova governing, among other matters, entry of Cemig GT into the controlling stockholding block of Renova, through subscription by Cemig GT of 87,186,035 new common shares to be issued by Renova.

 

The equity interest held by Cemig GT in Renova will be between 24.5% and 35.7% of the voting stock, representing between 20.2% and 27.4% of the total share capital, depending on the exercise of first refusal rights by existing stockholders.

 

Completion of the entry into the share capital of Renova, and actual transfer of shares, was made conditional upon certain conditions precedent, including consent of Renova’s creditors, consent from Aneel, and approval of the transaction by the Brazilian Monopolies Authority (Conselho Administrativo de Defesa Econômica, or Cade).

 

On February 20, 2014, after compliance with the conditions precedent and in accordance with the Investment Agreement, the Board of Directors of Renova approved the amount of the capital increase to be subscribed by Cemig GT, in the amount of R$ 1.550 billion. Subscription and full payment for the shares in Renova is expected to take place by July 29, 2014.

 

Under the Investment Agreement, Cemig GT may participate in the equity of Renova either by itself, or by a special-purpose company in which Cemig GT has 50% of the common shares and an Equity Investment Fund (a ‘Fundo de Investimento em Participações’, or FIP) holds the remaining 50%. If the transaction is shared with an FIP, the interest of Cemig GT, and the value of the acquisition, will be reduced.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                      19,325,808
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      365
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 70,840,147
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       5,220,274
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,728,093
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              98,765,839
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                     41,151,631
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       462,553
<OTHER-SE>                                  40,681,582
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                98,765,839
<SALES>                                     16,076,626
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            17,201,736
<CGS>                                       14,125,361
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               14,200,545
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,753,733
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              40,230
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (792,772)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (792,772)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (792,772)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.17)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 21.1

LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES



|                                          |  |                              |  | 
|----------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------------- |  | 
|Name of Subsidiary                        |  | Jurisdiction ofIncorporation |  | 
|1. DSP Group Ltd.                         |  | Israel                       | 
|2. Nihon DSP K.K.                         |  | Japan                        | 
|3. RF Integrated Systems, Inc.            |  | Delaware, U.S.               | 
|4. DSPG Edinburgh Ltd.                    |  | Scotland                     | 
|5. DSP Video Korea Ltd.*                  |  | Korea                        | 
|6. DSP R&D Ireland Ltd.                   |  | Ireland                      | 
|7. DSP Group Switzerland AG               |  | Switzerland                  | 
|8. DSPG Technologies GmbH                 |  | Germany                      | 
|9. DSP Group HK Limited                   |  | Hong Kong                    | 
|10. DSP Technology Indian Private Limited |  | India                        | 



|* | In liquidation as of December 31, 2008.
|- | ---------------------------------------
H. R. 6218 

One Hundred Seventeenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and twenty-two 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 317 Blattner 

Drive in Avon, Minnesota, as the ‘‘W.O.C. Kort Miller Plantenberg Post Office’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. W.O.C. KORT MILLER PLANTENBERG POST OFFICE. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 317 Blattner Drive in Avon, Minnesota, shall 

be known and designated as the ‘‘W.O.C. Kort Miller Plantenberg 

Post Office’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘W.O.C. Kort Miller Plantenberg Post Office’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. George FOUNTAIN Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-30152.

D.C. No. CR-99-00490-REJ.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 10, 2003.*

Decided March 19, 2003.

Before CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

George Fountain appeals the district court’s refusal to order the probation office to return or destroy all copies of a psycho-sexual evaluation it obtained in preparation for sentencing Fountain on a violation of his supervised release.

Because the evaluation did not affect the supervised release proceedings, and merely presents the possibility of future collat*941eral consequence, Fountain’s request is moot. *See United States v. Palomba,*182 F.3d 1121,1123 (9th Cir.1999). Accordingly, we dismiss for a lack of jurisdiction.

DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
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 on Form 10-K of MapInfo Corporation (the "Company") for the period ended September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Mark P. Cattini, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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.