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








In connection with the Annual Report of Asia Interactive Media Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:





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





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


Dated: March 31, 2010
 /s/ Ken Ng
 Ken Ng
 President, Chief Executive OfficerChief Financial Officer, Secretary,Treasurer, Director
##### 



Exhibit 12.5 Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm The Board of Directors
Rogers Cable Inc. The audits referred to in our report dated March 7, 2005 included the related
financial statement schedule as of December 31, 2004 and for each of the years in
the three-year period ended December 31, 2004, included in the annual report filed
on Form 20-F. This financial statement schedule is the responsibility of the
Companys management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on this financial
statement schedule based on our audits. In our opinion, such financial statement
schedule, when considered in relation to the basic consolidated financial statements
taken as a whole, presents fairly in all material respects the information set forth
therein. /s/ KPMG LLPChartered AccountantsToronto, CanadaMarch 7, 2005
 37
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 167 (Monday, August 30, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 53017]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-21327]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY


Office of the General Counsel; Appointment of Members of the 
Legal Division to the Performance Review Board, Internal Revenue 
Service

    Under the authority granted to me as Chief Counsel of the Internal 
Revenue Service by the General Counsel of the Department of the 
Treasury by General Counsel Directive 15, pursuant to the Civil Service 
Reform Act, I have appointed the following persons to the Legal 
Division Performance Review Board, Internal Revenue Service Panel:
    1. Christopher Meade, Principal Deputy General Counsel (Department 
of Treasury)
    2. Richard Byrd, Commissioner (Wage & Investment)
    3. Christopher Wagner, Commissioner (Small Business/Self Employed)
    This publication is required by 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4).

    Dated: August 23, 2010.
William J. Wilkins,
Chief Counsel, Internal Revenue Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-21327 Filed 8-27-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2249 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2249

 To amend the Indian Tribal Judgment Funds Use or Distribution Act to 
extend a certain income tax exemption to the Grand Portage Band of Lake 
                       Superior Chippewa Indians.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 10, 2014

 Mr. Franken (for himself and Ms. Klobuchar) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Indian Tribal Judgment Funds Use or Distribution Act to 
extend a certain income tax exemption to the Grand Portage Band of Lake 
                       Superior Chippewa Indians.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Grand Portage Band Per Capita 
Adjustment Act''.

SEC. 2. EQUAL TREATMENT OF CERTAIN PER CAPITA INCOME FOR PURPOSES OF 
              FEDERAL ASSISTANCE.

    Section 7(4) of the Indian Tribal Judgment Funds Use or 
Distribution Act (25 U.S.C. 1407(4)) is amended by striking ``pursuant 
to the agreements of such Band to voluntarily restrict tribal rights to 
hunt and fish in territory cede'' and inserting ``or the Grand Portage 
Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, or both, pursuant to the 
agreements of each band to voluntarily restrict tribal rights to hunt 
and fish in territory ceded''.
                                 <all>
```
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

December 29, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 132306 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

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

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 132306 

 COA: 268998 
 Wayne CC: 99-009662-01

CARL W. BOONE,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 28, 2006 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

d1218 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

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

December 29, 2006 

 Clerk
Exhibit 10.8


 





April 30, 2014


 


Delivered by Electronic Mail


 


Dear Mr. Ian Leopold:


 


This Clarification Agreement (this “Agreement”), dated
April 30, 2014, is to the letter agreement, dated as of March 4, 2013 (the “Original Agreement”), by and between American
Intramural Sports Group LLC (“AISG”) and Moko Social Media Limited (f/k/a MOKO.mobi Limited)(“MOKO”).


 


We note that Section 17(2) of the Original Agreement provides that
AISG may terminate the Original Agreement if MOKO fails to meet certain net revenue figures set forth therein.


 


As a result of certain questions that have arisen regarding the
applicability of Section 17(2) of the Original Agreement during the Beta Program and the Pilot Program, also described as Phase
III and Phase IV in the Original Agreement, the parties hereto deem it necessary and desirable to amend the Original Agreement
to clarify that Section 17(2) shall be applicable from and after June 1, 2014 being the date deemed by the parties hereto to be
the completion of the Beta Program and the Pilot Program and that the references therein to the “year one,” “year
two” and “year three” are to years of commercial operation following after such completion.


 


Except as set forth in this letter agreement, all provisions of
the Original Agreement which are not inconsistent with this agreement shall remain in full force and effect. This letter agreement
may be executed in counterparts.


 


Accepted and Agreed:


 





	Moko Social Media Limited	 	American Intramural Sports Group LLC
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	By: 	/s/ Ian Rodwell	 	By: 	/s/ Ian Leopold
	 	Name: Ian Rodwell	                	 	Name: Ian Leopold
	 	Title: CEO and Managing Director	 	 	Title: President
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-16-0000797

31-MAY-2019

10:59 AM
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         768408
<NAME>                        Cyanotech Corporation
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000

       
<S>                                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         MAR-31-1999          
<PERIOD-START>                            APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                              SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                            345
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   1,194
<ALLOWANCES>                                        7 
<INVENTORY>                                     2,267
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                3,893
<PP&E>                                         25,540
<DEPRECIATION>                                  5,394
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 24,317
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           1,603
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         1
<COMMON>                                           68
<OTHER-SE>                                     22,032
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   24,317
<SALES>                                         3,288
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                3,288
<CGS>                                           2,708
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   2,708
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                1,655
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 70
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (1,147)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (74)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (1,073)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (1,073)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.09)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.01

I, Mario Sbarro, certify that:

         1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Sbarro, Inc.

         2. Based on my knowledge,  this  Quarterly  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
Quarterly Report;

         3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information  included in this Quarterly  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 Quarterly Report.

Date:  August 25, 2003

/s/ MARIO SBARRO
-----------------------------------
Mario Sbarro
Chairman of the Board and President
(Principal Executive Officer)

A SIGNED  ORIGINAL OF THIS  WRITTEN  STATEMENT  REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 HAS BEEN
PROVIDED TO SBARRO,  INC. AND WILL BE RETAINED BY SBARRO,  INC. AND FURNISHED TO
THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.



                                    Page 47
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 of Titan Global Holdings Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending February 28, 2006 as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
      Bryan M. Chance, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
      to 18
      U.S.C. 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 and 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
      Titan Global Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by Titan Global Holdings,
      Inc.
      and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.


Date: May
              16,
              2006
            By:
            /s/ *Bryan
              M. Chance*Bryan
              M. ChanceChief
              Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4065

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
HERSHEL SMITH, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. David A. Faber, Chief District Judge. (CR-04-122)
Submitted: October 17, 2005 Decided: November 1, 2005 Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Donald L. Stennett, BREWSTER, MORHOUS, CAMERON, CARUTH, MOORE, KERSEY & STAFFORD, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Charles T. Miller, Acting United States Attorney, John L. File, Assistant United States Attorney, Beckley, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Hershel Smith appeals his 70-month sentence pursuant to a guilty plea for possession of 41.1 grams of pseudoephedrine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(c)(2) (2000). His sole argument on appeal is that a remand is warranted because he was sentenced under a mandatory application of the federal sentencing guidelines, in violation of United States v. Booker , 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). We affirm Smith’s sentence. Because Smith did not object below to the mandatory application of the guidelines, we review for plain error. United States v. White , 405 F.3d 208, 215 (4th Cir. 2005). To demonstrate plain error, a defendant must establish that error occurred, that it was plain, and that it affected his substantial rights. Id. (citing United States v. Olano , 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993)). If a defendant establishes these requirements, the court has discretion to correct the error, but “should not exercise . . . [that discretion] unless the error seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In White , this court determined that imposing a sentence under the guidelines as mandatory was error that was plain. White , 405 F.3d at 217. In determining whether this error affected the defendant’s substantial rights, the court reasoned that “the error of sentencing a defendant under a mandatory guidelines regime” was- 3 - not an error for which prejudice would be presumed. Id.at 221. Rather, the defendant bears the burden of showing that this error “affected the outcome of the district court proceedings.” Id. at 223 (quoting Olano , 507 U.S. at 734). We find that Smith fails to meet this burden because he presents no non-speculative evidence or argument demonstrating that he would have received a lower sentence had the district court appreciated that the guidelines were not mandatory. We therefore conclude that the district court’s error of sentencing Smith under a mandatory guidelines scheme did not affect his substantial rights. Accordingly, we affirm Smith’s sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<PAGE>
<ARTICLE>  5
       
<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                            8,068
<SECURITIES>                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    10,231
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (527)
<INVENTORY>                                       6,629
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 25,174
<PP&E>                                            4,659
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (3,087)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  115,081
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            24,090
<BONDS>                                          22,310
<COMMON>                                          2,478
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<OTHER-SE>                                       31,297
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    115,081
<SALES>                                          49,151
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 49,151
<CGS>                                            36,147
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    36,147
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 12,615
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    129
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                2,573
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   5,400
<INCOME-TAX>                                      2,240
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               5,910
<DISCONTINUED>                                    1,257
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                      7,167
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       .72
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       .72
        


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7161
CHRISTOPHER M. HUTCHINSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus LISA EDWARDS, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CA-01-708-AM) Submitted: March 21, 2002 Decided: March 27, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christopher M. Hutchinson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Christopher M. Hutchinson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Hutchinson v. Edwards , No. CA-01-708-AM (E.D. Va. filed June 5, 2001 & entered June 6, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<PAGE>

PROVIDENT AMERICAN CORPORATION                                        EXHIBIT 11
COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

(In thousands except per share data)                                       Three Months Ended June 30,     Six Months Ended June 30,
                                                                             1998             1997          1998            1997
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

<S>                                                                        <C>             <C>             <C>            <C>      
Basic Earnings Per Share

NET INCOME APPLICABLE TO COMMON STOCK:                                     $ (2,382)       $ (5,724)       $    254       $ (4,946)
                                                                           --------        --------        --------       -------- 

WEIGHTED AVERAGE SHARES:                                                     11,990          10,071          11,699         10,068
                                                                           --------        --------        --------       -------- 

BASIC EARNINGS PER SHARE:                                                  $  (0.20)       $  (0.57)       $   0.02       $  (0.49)
                                                                           --------        --------        --------       -------- 




Diluted Earnings Per Share

NET INCOME APPLICABLE TO COMMON STOCK:                                     $ (2,382)       $ (5,724)       $    254       $ (4,946)
                                                                           --------        --------        --------       -------- 

WEIGHTED AVERAGE SHARES:
   Common stock                                                              11,990          10,071          11,699         10,068
   Common stock equivalents applicable to stock options and warrants              *               *              74              *
                                                                           --------        --------        --------       -------- 

      Total                                                                  11,990          10,071          11,773         10,068
                                                                           --------        --------        --------       -------- 

DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE:                                                $  (0.20)       $  (0.57)       $   0.02       $  (0.49)
                                                                           --------        --------        --------       -------- 
</TABLE>
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. DUAN WALKER.

October 3, 1985.

Petition for certification denied.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JOHN DIGILIO.

October 15, 1985.

Leave to appeal is granted; and it is further

ORDERED that the Appellate Division order of August 19, 1985, is summarily reversed, and the trial court’s order of August 8, 1985, is reinstated; and it is further

*348ORDERED that the motion to vacate the Appellate Division order is dismissed as moot.

Jurisdiction is not retained.
Exhibit 23

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

The Board of Directors
FIND/SVP, Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No.
33-42746, 33-75828, 333-03076, 333-22439, 333-22445 and 333-68315) on Form S-8
of FIND/SVP, Inc. and subsidiaries of our report dated February 22, 1999,
relating to the consolidated balance sheets of FIND/SVP, Inc. and subsidiaries
as of December 31, 1998, and 1997, and the related consolidated statements of
operations, shareholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the
three-year period ended December 31, 1998, and the related schedule, which
report appears in the December 31, 1998 annual report on Form 10-K of FIND/SVP,
Inc.

                                                              /S/KPMG  LLP
                                                              -----------------
                                                              KPMG LLP

New York, New York
March 30, 1999
EXHIBIT 32
 CAPSTEAD MORTGAGE CORPORATION
CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of the Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and
 2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Date:  January 12, 2009
    By:
    /s/ ANDREW F. JACOBSAndrew F. JacobsPresident and Chief Executive OfficerDate:  January 12, 2009
    By:
    /s/ PHILLIP A. REINSCHPhillip A. ReinschExecutive Vice President and

Chief Financial Officer