alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32





CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Simulations Plus, Inc., a California corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended February 28, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Walter S. Woltosz, Chief Executive Officer of the Company and Momoko A. Beran, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, respectively, do each hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, that to his/her 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 result of operations of the Company.




/s/Walter S. Woltosz


Walter S. Woltosz


Chief Executive Officer


(Principal Executive Officer)


April 13, 2011





/s/Momoko A. Beran


Momoko A. Beran


Chief Financial Officer


(Principal Financial Officer)


April 13, 2011





(A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Simulations Plus, Inc. and will be retained by Simulations Plus, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 06-cr-165-PB

Anthony Frith

O R D E R

The defendant has moved to continue the April 3, 2007 trial

in the above case, citing the need for additional time for his 

new attorney to complete discovery and prepare a defense. The

government does not object to a continuance of the trial date.

Accordingly, for the above reasons and to allow the parties

additional time to properly prepare for trial, the court will

continue the trial from April 3, 2007 to June 5, 2007. In

agreeing to continue the trial, the court finds pursuant to 18

U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(8)(A) that for the above-stated reasons, the

ends of justice served in granting a continuance outweigh the

best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

Case 1:06-cr-00165-PB Document 26 Filed 03/23/07 Page 1 of 2
2

The court will hold a final pretrial conference on May 22,

2007 at 3:00 p.m.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

March 23, 2007

cc: Richard Foley, Esq.

Helen Fitzgibbon, AUSA

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:06-cr-00165-PB Document 26 Filed 03/23/07 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule  contains  summary  financial data extracted from the consolidated
balance sheet and the consolidated  statements of operations and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                           0001023745
<NAME>                          VoiceNet, Inc.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                              JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         82,426
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  12,424
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              102,232
<PP&E>                                              0
<DEPRECIATION>                                      0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              4,375,274
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          87,903
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                       33,387
<OTHER-SE>                                          0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                4,375,274
<SALES>                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    0
<CGS>                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  81,576
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (81,576)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 0
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (81,576)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0



</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Joseph Vaillancourt

v. Civil No. 06-cv-438-JD

New Hampshire Department

of Corrections, et al.

O R D E R

Joseph Vaillancourt moves for default judgment in his favor,

arguing that the defendants failed to file a responsive pleading

within the time allowed under the federal rules. Vaillancourt is

mistaken. 

When, as here, a prisoner brings suit seeking redress from a

governmental entity or its employee, his complaint is subject to

review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Service is not made on any

defendant until that review is complete. See, e.g., Brewer v.

Paugh, 2007 WL 545997 at *3, n.2 (N.D.W. Va. Feb. 16, 2007);

Mason v. Kearney, 2002 WL 31207195 at *2 (D. Del. Sept. 26,

2002). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a)(1) requires a

defendant to file an answer within twenty days after being served

with the complaint and summons unless service has been waived,

when the deadline is extended.

Vaillancourt filed his motion for default judgment before

the magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation on §

Case 1:06-cv-00438-JD Document 165 Filed 05/03/07 Page 1 of 2
2

1915A review and, therefore, before the defendants were properly

served. Therefore, no grounds exist for a default judgment based

on the defendants’ response to his complaint. 

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the plaintiff’s motion for a

default judgment (document no. 98) is denied.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

May 3, 2007

cc: Nancy J. Smith, Esquire

Nancy Sue Tierney, Esquire

Joseph Vaillancourt, pro se

Case 1:06-cv-00438-JD Document 165 Filed 05/03/07 Page 2 of 2
#### EKMAN et al. v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Florida, Division B.

May 30, 1935.

Roach & Hoyl, of Fort Lauderdale, for plaintiff in error.

Cary D. Landis, Atty. Gen., and Roy Campbell, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

BUFORD, Justice.

The writ of error brings for review judgment of conviction of the offense of larceny of a cow.

Plaintiffs in error only question the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict.

The unlawful taking, killing, and converting of the property by the defendants is fully established; in fact, the defendants admitted taking and killing the cow without any pretense of right or ownership. Their theory of defense was that they were so drunk by the use of intoxicating liquor that they did not know or remember anything about the details or butchering and taking the cow away in a truck and were, by reason of such intoxicated condition, incapable of forming or entertaining the criminal intent to commit the act. Defendants evidently hoped to bring themselves apparently within the rule stated in the case of Garner v. State, 28 Fla. 113, 9 So. 835, 29 Am. St. Rep. 232.

The record shows that the defendants left the' head of the cow with a metal tag in one ear and an “S” brand on the jaw in the marsh a, short distance from where they butchered the cow, and that one of the defendants remembered enough about the matter to take officers to the scene and show them where the head had been thrown in the marsh. There the head was found.

The court, amongst other things, charged the jury as follows:

> “I charge you further that where a specific intent is-required to make an act an offense, such as in the charge preferred against the defendants on trial, the doing of the act does not raise a presumption that it was done with that specific intent. The intent must be established from the facts and circumstances established by satisfactory evidence during the trial of the case.

> “The court charges you, gentlemen, that one of the defenses in this case is that these defendants were intoxicated to such an extent that they were incapable of forming the intent. In eases of which a specific or particular intent is an essential or constituent element of the offense, intoxication, though vol-*717trntary, becomes a matter for consideration or is relevant evidence, with reference to the ability of the accused to form or entertain such intent. Where a person is too intoxicated to entertain or be capable of forming an essential particular intent, such intent cannot exist, and consequently the offense of which it is a necessary element cannot be perpetrated.”

The defendants could have ashed no fairer charge.

The jury just did not believe that defendants were so intoxicated as to be incapable of forming and entertaining a criminal intent. The entire record convinces us that the jury was amply justified in reaching the conclusion evidenced by the verdict.

The judgment should be affirmed.

It is so ordered.

Affirmed.

ELLIS, P. J., and TERRELL, J., concur.

WHITFIELD, O. X, and BROWN and DAVIS, JX, concur in the opinion and judgment.
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1722

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the amount excluded

from gain on the sale of a principal residence for both single and

joint filers to $1,000,000.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 3, 2001

Ms. LOFGREN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase

the amount excluded from gain on the sale of a principal

residence for both single and joint filers to $1,000,000.

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

3 SECTION 1. INCREASE IN AMOUNT OF GAIN EXCLUDED

4 FROM GROSS INCOME.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (1) of section 121(b)

6 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to general

7 limitations) is amended by striking ‘‘$250,000’’ and in8 serting ‘‘$1,000,000’’.
2

•HR 1722 IH

1 (b) REPEAL OF SPECIAL RULES FOR JOINT RE2 TURNS.—Subsection (b) of section 121 of such Code is

3 amended by striking paragraph (2) and redesignating

4 paragraph (3) as paragraph (2).

5 (c) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—

6 (1) Section 121(c) of such Code is amended—

7 (A) by striking ‘‘subsection (b)(3)’’ both

8 places it appears and inserting ‘‘subsection

9 (b)(2)’’, and

10 (B) by striking ‘‘or (2) of subsection (b),

11 whichever is applicable,’’ in the matter pre12 ceding subparagraph (A).

13 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

14 this section shall apply to sales and exchanges after the

15 date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 05-221-01-B

Thomas Newton

O R D E R

The defendant has moved to continue the October 3, 2006 trial

in the above case. Defendant cites the need for additional time

to complete a negotiated disposition in this matter. The government 

Accordingly, in order to allow the parties additional time

to complete a negotiated disposition in this matter, the court

will continue the trial from October 3, 2006 to November 7, 2006. 

 In agreeing to continue the trial, the court finds pursuant to

18 U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(8)(A) that for the above-stated reasons,

the ends of justice served in granting a continuance outweigh the

best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

Case 1:05-cr-00221-PB Document 18 Filed 09/26/06 Page 1 of 2
2

The September 27, 2006 final pretrial conference is

continued until October 20, 2006 at 9:30 am for the purpose of a

plea hearing.

SO ORDERED.

/s/ Paul Barbadoro

Paul Barbadoro

Chief Judge

September 26, 2006

cc: Stephen A. Cherry, Esq.

Arnold H. Huftalen, Esq.

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:05-cr-00221-PB Document 18 Filed 09/26/06 Page 2 of 2
---

B.3. Net Charge-offs of Non-real-estate Farm Loans Held by Insured Commercial Banks Year
                  Estimated volume (billions of dollars)
                  Share of outstanding farm production loans (percent)Total
                  Q1
                  Q2
                  Q3
                  Q4
                  Total
                  Q1
                  Q2
                  Q3
                  Q41992
          82
          14
          20
          29
          18
          .237
          .039
          .062
          .083
          .0501993
          54
          7
          16
          5
          26
          .155
          .020
          .049
          .014
          .0691994
          69
          10
          11
          15
          33
          .187
          .026
          .032
          .037
          .0821995
          51
          -2
          14
          13
          25
          .131
          -.004
          .039
          .032
          .0611996
          95
          16
          27
          24
          30
          .240
          .039
          .070
          .058
          .0711997
          93
          6
          19
          19
          50
          .230
          .014
          .049
          .045
          .1121998
          87
          4
          15
          24
          45
          .198
          .008
          .036
          .051
          .0951999
          126
          18
          37
          35
          36
          .280
          .040
          .086
          .078
          .0802000
          108
          11
          17
          34
          45
          .259
          .027
          .041
          .075
          .0982001
          308
          67
          53
          140
          48
          .656
          .142
          .118
          .294
          .1012002
          221
          40
          50
          58
          73
          .471
          .085
          .114
          .124
          .1572003
          175
          34
          35
          48
          58
          .382
          .074
          .080
          .108
          .128 Note. Components might not sum to totals because of rounding. Reported
amounts are adjusted to exclude foreign results for large banks that
report farm net charge-offs on a consolidated basis and for small banks
that are allowed to report net charge-offs according to their internal
definition of agricultural loans. Quarterly data are as of end of quarter.
   n.a. Not available.


Statistical releases

---

Home Economic research and data  Accessibility Contact Us  Last update: December 30, 2003
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-16-00189-CV

Maryann CASTRO and Manuel Castro,

Appellants

v.

MLB SUB I, LLC,

Appellee

From the County Court, Atascosa County, Texas

Trial Court No. 4343

Honorable Lynn Ellison, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ALVAREZ, JUSTICE CHAPA, AND JUSTICE PULLIAM

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED FOR 

WANT OF PROSECUTION. Appellee’s motion to dismiss is MOOT. Appellants are indigent; 

no costs are taxed in this appeal. 

SIGNED August 17, 2016.

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 07-cr-45-PB

Dana Ragonese, et al.

O R D E R

The defendant, through counsel, has moved to continue the

January 8, 2008 trial in the above case, citing the need for

additional time to complete a further psychological evaluation to

determine competency and prepare for trial. The government and

co-defendant, John Douglas, do not object to a continuance of the 

trial date.

Accordingly, for the above reason and to allow the parties

additional time to properly prepare for trial, the court will

continue the trial from January 8, 2008 to May 6, 2008. In

agreeing to continue the trial, the court finds pursuant to 18

U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(8)(A) that for the above-stated reasons, the

ends of justice served in granting a continuance outweigh the

best interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy

trial.

Case 1:07-cr-00045-PB Document 103 Filed 12/14/07 Page 1 of 2
2

The December 20, 2007 final pretrial conference is continued

to April 23, 2008 at 4:15 p.m.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

December 14, 2007

cc: Glenn Geiger, Esq.

Harry Batchelder, Esq.

Bjorn Lange, Esq.

Peter Papps, Esq.

R. Brian Snow, Esq.

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:07-cr-00045-PB Document 103 Filed 12/14/07 Page 2 of 2
Skip to Content
Release dates
About
Current release
*Other formats:*
 ASCII (48 KB)
PDF (115 KB)
CSV (103 KB)

----

**March 2003**

Section B
Section C

All files contain data as of the current quarter. Files in comma-separated variable (CSV) format contain all available historical data.Summary Charts    PDF (11 KB)CSV (5 KB) Section AAmount and Characteristics of Farm Loans Made by Commercial Banks    A.1. Number of Non-real-estate Bank LoansASCII (5 KB)PDF (4 KB)Screen ReaderCSV (9 KB)  A.2. Average Size of Non-real-estate Bank LoansASCII (6 KB)PDF (4 KB)Screen ReaderCSV (11 KB)  A.3. Volume of Non-real-estate Bank LoansASCII (5 KB)PDF (4 KB)Screen ReaderCSV (10 KB)  A.4. Average Maturity of Non-real-estate Bank LoansASCII (5 KB)PDF (4 KB)Screen ReaderCSV (10 KB)  A.5. Average Effective Interest Rate on Non-real-estate BankASCII (5 KB)PDF (4 KB)Screen ReaderCSV (9 KB)  A.6. Share of Non-real-estate Bank Loans with a Floating Interest RateASCII (5 KB)PDF (4 KB)Screen ReaderCSV (11 KB)  A.7. Distribution of Dollar Amount of Non-real-estate Farm LoansASCII (5 KB)PDF (4 KB)Screen ReaderCSV (4 KB)  A.8. All Banks, by Size of LoanASCII (7 KB)PDF (5KB)Screen ReaderCSV (25 KB)  A.9. Large Farm Lenders, by Size of LoanASCII (4 KB)PDF (4 KB)Screen ReaderCSV (24 KB)  A.10. Small and Mid-sized Farm LendersASCII (4 KB)PDF (4 KB)Screen ReaderCSV (24 KB)  A.11. All Banks, by Risk RatingASCII (4 KB)PDF (4 KB)Screen ReaderCSV (27 KB)  A.12. Large Farm LendersASCII (5 KB)PDF (4 KB)Screen ReaderCSV (25 KB)  A.13. Small and Mid-sized Farm LendersASCII (5 KB)PDF (4 KB)Screen ReaderCSV (25 KB)  A.14. Regional Disaggregation of Survey ResultsASCII (5 KB)PDF (4 KB)Screen ReaderCSV (5 KB)Release dates |AboutCurrent release*Other formats:* ASCII (48 KB) |PDF (115 KB) |CSV (103 KB)
Statistical releasesHome |Economic research and dataAccessibility |Contact Us**Last update: March 31, 2003**
Exhibit 15.1  LOGO  February 18, 2020 
Q&K International Group Limited 
Suite 1607, Building A 
No.596 Middle Longhua Road 
Xuhui District, Shanghai, 200032 
Peoples Republic of China

26/F, HKRI Centre One, HKRI Taikoo Hui
288 Shimen Road (No.1) Shanghai 200041,
P. R. China T: (86-21) 5298-5488 F:
(86-21) 5298-5492 Dear Sir/Madam: We hereby
consent to the references to our firms name under the headings Item 3. Key InformationD. Risk Factors and Item 4. Information on the CompanyC. Organizational Structure in Q&K International Group
Limiteds annual report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2019 (the Annual Report), which will be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
SEC) on the date hereof. We also consent to the filing of this consent letter with the SEC as an exhibit to the Annual Report. In giving such
consent, we do not thereby admit that we come within the category of persons whose consent is required under Section 7 of the Securities Act of 1933, or under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, in each case, as amended, or the regulations
promulgated thereunder. Very truly yours, /s/ JunHe LLP JunHe LLP  Beijing Head Office Tel: (86-10) 8519-1300 Fax: (86-10) 8519-1350

Shanghai Office Tel: (86-21) 5298-5488
Fax: (86-21) 5298-5492

Shenzhen Office Tel: (86-755) 2587-0765 Fax: (86-755) 2587-0780

Guangzhou Office Tel: (86-20) 2805-9088 Fax: (86-20) 2805-9099

Dalian Office Tel: (86-411) 8250-7578 Fax: (86-411) 8250-7579Haikou Office Tel: (86-898) 6851-2544 Fax: (86-898) 6851-3514

Tianjin Office Tel: (86-22) 5990-1301 Fax: (86-22) 5990-1302

Qingdao Office Tel: (86-532) 6869-5000 Fax: (86-532) 6869-5010

Chengdu Office Tel: (86-28) 6739-8000 Fax: (86-28) 6739-8001

Hong Kong Office Tel: (852) 2167-0000
Fax: (852) 2167-0050New York Office Tel: (1-212) 703-8702 Fax: (1-212) 703-8720

Silicon Valley Office Tel: (1-888) 886-8168 Fax: (1-888) 808-2168





www.junhe.com
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

In re

MARTHA AKERS
,

Debtor.

MARTHA AKERS
,

Appellant
,

v.

JOHN P. FITZPATRICK
,

Appellee. Civil Action No. 18

- cv

- 1323 (DLF)
(Bankruptcy No. 17

- 10034 )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On June 1 , 2018, Martha Akers filed a notice of ap peal from bankruptcy case No. 17

-

10034

. Dkt. 1.
On July 3 , 2018, the Clerk of Court provided the parties with notice of transmission of
the record on appeal. Dkt. 3. In that notice, the Clerk of Court notified appellant Martha Akers
that Rule 8018(a) of the Bankruptcy Rules of Civil Procedure required her to s er ve and file any
brief by August 2 , 2018 , and that failure to do so could result in dismissal on appellee’s motion

or, after notice, on the Court’s own motion

. Id.

On August 6, 2018, Akers still had not filed a brief, and the Court issued a minute order
explaining that Akers had missed her Rule 8018(a) deadline

. The Court further explained that
, under Rule 8018(a)(4), if an appellant fails to file a brief on time, the district court, “after notice,
may dismiss the appeal on its own motion.” The Court no tified Akers that if she wished to2

pursue her appeal, she was required to file a brief on or before August 17, 2018. And it gave

notice that failure to do so could result in dismissal of Akers’s appeal.
As of September 10 , 2018

— over one month after t he Rule 8018 (a) deadline and over two

weeks after the additional time provided by this Court

— Akers st ill has not filed a brief. The
Court will therefore dismiss her appeal. A separate order consistent with this decision
accompanies this memorandum opinio n.

________________________ DABNEY L. FRIEDRICH United States District Judge Date: September 10 , 2018