alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 32.1**

**Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of FelCor Lodging Limited Partnership (the “Registrant”) on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report), the undersigned hereby certifies, in the capacity as indicated below and 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, as amended, and |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

| May 8, 2007 | /s/Richard A. Smith |  
 
Richard A. Smith

 
 
Chief Executive Officer of FelCor Lodging

 
Trust Incorporated, as general partner of

 
FelCor Lodging Limited Partnership

 

 

  |
|-------------|---------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF NextGen 1.7.1.1

Eastern Division

Simon Pfeifer, et al.

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:20−cv−03116

Honorable Robert W. Gettleman

Loyola University Chicago

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Tuesday, January 23, 2024:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Robert W. Gettleman: In Court fairness

hearing held on 1/23/2024. No objectors or people wishing to op out of the class appeared.

For the reasons stated on the record, Plaintiffs' Motion For Attorneys9; Fees, Costs, And

Service Awards [72] and Unopposed Motion For Final Approval Of Class Action

Settlement [77] are granted. Enter Final Approval Order. Civil case terminated. Mailed

notice (cn).

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:20-cv-03116 Document #: 78 Filed: 01/23/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:4867
#### E. F. Abbott, etc., *v.*City of Newport.

Appeals and Errors — Mandate—Former Opinion of the Case.

The Court of Appeals has not the power to revise its former decision, whether it be right or wrong. The Court of Appeals, as well as the Circuit Court, is bound to recognize it as the law of the case.

APPEAL PROM CAMPBELL CIRCUIT COURT.

February 21, 1872.

*Hallam, for appellants.*

*Hawkins & Boden, for appellee.*

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Pryor:

Although the mandate of the court did not in terms direct the Judge of the Circuit Court upon the return of the cause to dismiss the petition of the appellants, yet when the reasoning and conclusions of this court, as set out in the opinion, are considered, the further proceedings directed to be had, mean nothing more than the entry upon, the record of the mandate, and the dismissal of such petition.

The amended petition offered to be filed is in no sense a bill-of review. It presents no new fact arising or discovered since the first hearing of the cause. The object was to raise a question of law which might have been prevented, and acted upon when the cause was first heard, or as appellants express it, to present fully and clearly a legal question attempted to be raised in the original pleadings.

It is not necessary that we should express an opinion upon this legal proposition. We have not the power to revise our former decision. Whether it be right or wrong, this court as well as the circuit court, is bound to recognize it as the law of this case.

Inasmuch as the circuit court had no discretion in the matter, but was bound to enter and obey the mandate of this court, it was not erroneous to refuse to transfer the cause to the chancery court.

Judgment affirmed.
`[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 263 Reported in House (RH)]






                                                 House Calendar No. 107
105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 263

                          [Report No. 105-314]

Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the 
     bill (H.R. 2169) making appropriations for the Department of 
    Transportation and related agencies for the fiscal year ending 
              September 30, 1998, and for other purposes.


_______________________________________________________________________


                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 8, 1997

    Mr. Linder, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION


 
Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the 
     bill (H.R. 2169) making appropriations for the Department of 
    Transportation and related agencies for the fiscal year ending 
              September 30, 1998, and for other purposes.

    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order to consider the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 
2169) making appropriations for the Department of Transportation and 
related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, and for 
other purposes. All points of order against the conference report and 
against its consideration are waived. The conference report shall be 
considered as read.
                                     





                                                 House Calendar No. 107

105th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                              H. RES. 263

                          [Report No. 105-314]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the 
     bill (H.R. 2169) making appropriations for the Department of 
    Transportation and related agencies for the fiscal year ending 
              September 30, 1998, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                            October 8, 1997

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed`
H. Res. 114

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

April 16, 1997.

Resolved, That the following named Members be, and

they are hereby, elected to the following standing committee

of the House of Representatives:

COMMITTEE ON BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES:

Mr. Manzullo, Mr. Foley, and Mr. Jones.

Attest:

Clerk.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 95-31095

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DARRIN D. PLAIN,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 95-CR-47

- - - - - - - - - -

October 23, 1996

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Darrin D. Plain challenges his sentence arising from his

conviction for distribution of cocaine base, arguing that there

is no scientific basis for making a distinction between cocaine

and cocaine base at sentencing. He argues that the applicable

sentencing provisions are ambiguous because they treat the two

substances differently and, therefore, that the rule of lenity

should have been applied by the district court at sentencing.
No. 95-31095

- 2 -

Plain also argues that the sentencing statute is ambiguous

because it does not clearly define the meaning of “cocaine base.”

This court has rejected the argument that scientific

evidence concerning the similar properties of cocaine and cocaine

base render the statutory penalties for cocaine base and cocaine

offenses sufficiently ambiguous to warrant the application of the

rule of lenity. See United States v. Flanagan, 87 F.3d 121, 123-

24 (5th Cir. 1996); United States v. Lampkin, No. 95-30131 (5th

Cir. Aug. 25, 1995) (unpublished). We have also previously

determined that the sentencing statute is not constitutionally

infirm because it does not define the meaning of cocaine base. 

See United States v. Thomas, 932 F.2d 1085, 1090 (5th Cir. 1991),

cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1038 (1992).

AFFIRMED.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6.3.3

Eastern Division

Regina Howell

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:20−cv−03077

Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo

Byron Udell & Associates, Inc., et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Monday, September 21, 2020:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo: A notice of voluntary

dismissal has been filed. This case is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to FRCP

41(a)(1)(A)(i). All pending dates and motions are terminated as moot. Civil case

terminated. Mailed notice. (mgh, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:20-cv-03077 Document #: 15 Filed: 09/21/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:60
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Michelle Zajac","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/mzajac\/","title":"Casey Swails","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"496O25L1Ib\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/people\/nasa-deputy-associate-administrator-casey-swails\/\">Casey Swails<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/people\/nasa-deputy-associate-administrator-casey-swails\/embed\/#?secret=496O25L1Ib\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Casey Swails” — NASA\" data-secret=\"496O25L1Ib\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/11\/20210419-_1ag5706_cropped_0.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":617}
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 254 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                    September 30, 1997.
    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 2203) making 
appropriations for energy and water development for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 1998, and for other purposes. All points of order against the 
conference report and against its consideration are waived. The conference 
report shall be considered as read.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
#### L. B. Rucker *v.*Thomas S. Johnston.

Trial — False Statement of Witness — Instructions on — Argument of Counsel Upon Facts Not Appearing in the Record.

Appellant asked for an instruction to the effect that, if any witness for appellee had sworn to a material fact on the trial, knowing at the time that the statement was false, the jury had the right to disregard his whole testimony. This instruction the court below refused to give.

Held, that the instruction should have been given and that the defendant’s case was prejudiced by the argument of counsel for appellee.

APPEAL FROM CALDWELL CIRCUIT COURT.

March 21, 1872.

Opinion by

Judge Pryor :

After a careful examination of the facts presented in this record we are satisfied that the appellant should have been awarded a new trial. The principle and, in fact, the only witness upon whose testimony the money in controversy was traced to the hands of the appellant and himself once had possession of it and was sued for failing to pay it over. In his answer to that suit he attempted to make an evasive denial of his knowledge in regard to the package, says “that Cobb told him upon handing him a letter that it contained .a little money, and that by some mistake he lost said letter without any neglect on his part. This answer was sworn to by the witness (Davis) and upon the trial of the present suit he swears that the statements in the answer made by him were not true, and that he knew at the time of swearing to them they were not true, and that he delivered the package or letter to the appellant Rucker. The court in the instruction given to the jury said to them in substance that if the appellant obtained the package of money and failed to pay it over to the party entitled upon demand, that he was liable. We perceive no objection to this instruction, but after the case was submitted to the jury and whilst the counsel for the appellee was making his argument, the appellant’s counsel asked for an additional instruction to the effect that if any witness for the appellee had sworn to a material fact on the trial knowing at the *583time that the statement was false, they have the right to disregard his whole testimony. This instruction the court refused to give and permitted the counsel for the appellee in his concluding argument to appeal to the prejudices of the jury upon a statement of facts not appearing in the record. That evidently when taken in connection with the refusal to give the instruction prejudiced the defense in the case. The instruction ought to have been given and particularly after the concluding argument had been made by counsel for the appellee. The judgment of the court below is reversed and the cause' remanded with directions to set aside the verdict and give the appellants a new trial.

*F. W .Darby, for appellant.*

*Jas. R. Hewlett, for*appellee.
Exhibit 21.1

LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF QUALITY DISTRIBUTION, INC.



|                                           |  |                       
|------------------------------------------ |  | ----------------------
|Name                                       |  | State of Incorporation
|                                           | 
|American Transinurance Group, Inc.         |  | Delaware              
|Boasso America Corporation                 |  | Louisiana             
|Chemical Leaman Corporation                |  | Pennsylvania          
|EnviroPower, Inc.                          |  | Delaware              
|Levy Transport Ltd. / Levy Transport, LTEE |  | Canada                
|Mexico Investments, Inc.                   |  | Florida               
|MTL De Mexico S.A. de c.v.                 |  | Mexico                
|MTL of Nevada                              |  | Nevada                
|Power Purchasing, Inc.                     |  | Delaware              
|QC Energy Resources, LLC                   |  | Delaware              
|QC Dry Bulk, LLC                           |  | Delaware              
|QD Capital Corporation                     |  | Delaware              
|QD Risk Services, Inc.                     |  | Florida               
|Quala Systems, Inc.                        |  | Delaware              
|Quality Carriers, Inc.                     |  | Illinois              
|Quality Distribution, LLC                  |  | Delaware
#### R. H. Rosseau & W. D. Craddock *v.*E. J. Mitchell.

Bills and Notes — Misdescription of Note — Error in Calculating Interest— Misprision.

Tbe misdescription of a note is not sufficient to authorize a reversal of the case and an error in the calculation of the interest at the time of the judgment, is a clerical misprision, which can be corrected on motion.

*568Attachment — Garnishment—Judgment Against Garnishee — Must Have Money and Not Property in His Hands.

The allegations upon which the judgment was rendered against Craddock is to the effect that he had money, property, choses in action, and legal and equitable interest in property belonging to Rosseau in his hands and under his control more than sufficient to pay the debt sued for.

Held, that if Craddock had in his hand money sufficient to pay such debt it might have been proper to render a judgment against him, but he could not be compelled to pay Rosseau’s debt and then convert property in his hands belonging to Rosseau, into money for the purpose of reimbursing himself.

APPEAL FROM LOUISVILLE CHANCERY.

February 16, 1872.

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay:

The mis-description of the note sued on is not sufficient to authorize a reversal of the judgment against Rosseau. The alleged error in the calculation of the interest and at the time of judgment is a clerical misprision, which can be corrected upon motion. The petition alleges that the note was assigned and transferred by the payees to this plaintiff, and this allegation stands confessed.

We, perceive no error in the procedings or judgment as to Rosseaw authorizing the reversal thereof by this court.

The allegation upon which the judgment was rendered against Craddock is to the effect that he had money property choses in action and legal and equitable interests in property belonging to Rosseau in his hands and under his control more than sufficient to pay the debt sued for. If he had in his hands the money sufficient to pay such debt, it might have been proper to render a judgment against him, but that fact is not alleged.

But certainly he ought not to be compelled to pay Rosseau’s debt, and then convert property choses in action and legal and equitable interests in property belonging to Rosseau and under his control, into money for the purpose of reimbursing himself for such payment. The proper course would have been to compel him to disclose the amount and character of such property to the court, and then to subject the same to the payment of appellee’s judgment.

*569*Dembeitz & Eehle, for appellants-*

*Thompson Booth & Klein, for appellees.*

As to Craddock, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
#### W. A. Crider *v.*Peter Smith, Etc.

Pleadings — Amendment After Reversal — Discretion of the Court.

The appellant chose to stand by his original answer. He might then have amended and set up the matters contained in the amendment he offered to file on the return of the case, and it was his duty to have done so. He does not claim that he has discovered the defenses now sought to be made since the first trial in the Circuit Court.

APPEAL PROM OLDHAM CIRCUIT COURT.

November 1, 1872.

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay:

Although it was within the power of the Circuit Judge to permit further pleading upon the part of appellant upon the return of this cause to his court, yet we cannot say that he abused a sound discretion in refusing to permit either of the amended answers offered to be filed.

Appellant chose to stand by his original answer, when the demurrer to it was sustained. He might then have amended, and set up the matter contained in said two amendments, and it was his duty then to have done so. He does not claim that he has *777discovered the existence of the defenses now sought to be made since the first trial in the circuit court, and offers no explanation of his failure or refusal to rely upon them at that time.

*DeHaven, Rodman, for appellant.*

*Carroll, Lee & Rodman, for appellees.*

The judgment appealed from must be *affirmed.*
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 Annual Report of Kid Castle
      Educational Corporation, a Florida Corporation (the “Registrant”), on Form 10-Q
      for the fiscal period ending March 31, 2008 filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission , the undersigned hereby certifies that:





1.
      To the
      best of my knowledge, the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
      13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





2.
      To the
      best of my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
      of
      the Registrant.










DATE:
                May 13, 2008
            BY:
            /s/
                Min-Tan YangMIN
                TAN YANGCHIEF
                EXECUTIVE OFFICER




DATE:
                May 13, 2008
            BY:
            /s/
                Suang-Yi PaiSUANG-YI
                PAICHIEF
                FINANCIAL OFFICER