alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT
32.01



CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO

18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



WRITTEN
STATEMENT OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER



Solely
for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I,
Sean Martin, the undersigned President of Uplift Nutrition, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certify, based on my knowledge,
that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2015 (the “Report”) as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof:



|1. | Fully
    complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|/s/
    Sean Martin                         | 
|------------------------------------------- | 
|Sean
    Martin                             | 
|President
    (principal executive officer)



Dated:
January 19, 2017
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

April 23, 2012 

d0416 

Order 

 

April 23, 2012 

143925 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 143925 

 COA: 302635 

Bay CC: 02-001198-FC 

LONNIE BAILEY, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 20, 2011 

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).
#### Slater, Myers & Co. *v.*Demorest Spoke & Handle Co.

Where a letter of the defendant was relied upon by the plaintiff and is now sought to be enforced as a promise by the former to pay a debt owing to the latter by a third person, the evidence of the writer of the letter as to what he meant or intended in writing it, is inadmissible. In such case ambiguity may be explained by surrounding facts, but not by undisclosed intention.

August 20, 1894.

*Judgment reversed.*

Complaint. Before Judge Wellborn. Habersham superior court. September term, 1893.

J. C. Edwards, for plaintiffs.

Robinson was indebted to the plaintiffs $114.91 on an account. He sold out his stock of goods to defendants, and informed plaintiffs that defendants had assumed payment of the account. Plaintiffs wrote to defendants, and in answer received a letter signed by defendants, stating that “in purchasing Mr. Robinson’s stock of goods we assumed $1,000 indebtedness on the goods. We were to pay $100 of it monthly. Before he left the store I had him to give me a list of the firms he desired me to pay first, and the amounts to each one. Your firm’s name was on the list, and the amount $25. We have lived up to our contract with him; and when he tells us who and the amount we are to pay September 9th, to the amount of $100, we will do so. Be assured you will get your pay. . . ” On the trial of a suit by plaintiffs against defendants, on which this letter was introduced in evidence, one of defendants was allowed to testify over objection: “I wrote the letter introduced by plaintiffs, bufmeant that I would pay plaintiff’s’ claim against Robinson if Robinson told us to do so; did not mean to pay it unless he did so instruct.” The overruling of the objection was assigned as error.
#### DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION, a North Carolina Corporation, Tax Identification No. 56-0205520 v. WENDELL COREY MALCOLM and CALLABRIDGE/GRANITE, LLC

No. 379A06

(Filed 15 December 2006)

Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 178 N.C. App. 62, 630 S.E.2d 693 (2006), affirming in part and reversing in part a judgment entered 14 December 2004 by Judge James E. Lanning in Superior Court, Mecklenburg County. Heard in the Supreme Court 22 November 2006.

*Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP, by Irvin W. Hankins III and John W. Francisco, for plaintiff-appellee.*

*Ferguson, Scarbrough & Hayes, P.A., by James E. Scarbrough, for defendant-appellant Malcolm.*

*Kilpatrick Stockton LLP, by James H. Kelly, Jr. and Noelle E. Wooten, for defendant-appellant Callabridge/Granite, LLC.*

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.
EX-34.2
(logo) PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS


PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
300 Madison Avenue
New York NY 10017
Telephone (646) 417 3000
Facsimilie (813) 286 6000



Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Stockholder of Chase Home Finance LLC:


We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying
Management's Report on Assessment of Compliance with Applicable Servicing
Criteria, that Chase Home Finance LLC (the "Company") complied with the
servicing criteria set forth in item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange
Commission's Regulation AB as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007 (the
"Reporting Period"), for asset-backed securities transactions backed by
non-prime residential mortgages serviced on the Loan Servicing and Accounting
Management System I ("LSAMS I") where the related asset-backed securities were
outstanding during the Reporting Period (the "Platform"), excluding criteria
1122(d)(1)(iii), 1122(d)(4)(i), 1122(d)(4)(ii) and 1122(d)(4)(xv), which the
Company has determined are not applicable to the activities performed by it with
respect to the Platform. Management is responsible for the Company's compliance
with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on
management's assertion based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with standards of the Public Company
Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining,
on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the applicable
servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered
necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of selected
asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Platform, testing of
selected servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether
the Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selected
activities in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Our procedures
were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by
the Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were not
designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred
prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or
amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this
report. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our
opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company's
compliance with the servicing criteria.

In our opinion, management's assertion that the Company complied with the
aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2007 for the for asset-backed securities transactions backed by
non-prime residential mortgages serviced on the LSAMS I where the related
asset-backed securities were outstanding during the Reporting Period is fairly
stated, in all material respects.


/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP


February 25, 2008
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4112 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4112

 To treat payments by charitable organizations with respect to certain 
                    firefighters as exempt payments.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            December 8, 2006

Mrs. Feinstein (for herself, Mrs. Boxer, and Mr. Craig) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                                Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To treat payments by charitable organizations with respect to certain 
                    firefighters as exempt payments.

    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 ``Fallen Firefighters Assistance Tax 
Clarification Act of 2006''.

SEC. 2. PAYMENTS BY CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN 
              FIREFIGHTERS TREATED AS EXEMPT PAYMENTS AND EXCLUDED FROM 
              GROSS INCOME OF THE RECIPIENTS.

    (a) In General.--For purposes of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986--
            (1) payments made by an organization described in section 
        501(c)(3) of such Code by reason of the death, injury, 
        wounding, or illness of any firefighter incurred as the result 
        of the October 2006 Esperanza Incident fire in southern 
        California, and before June 1, 2007, shall be treated as 
        related to the purpose or function constituting the basis for 
        such organization's exemption under section 501 of such Code if 
        such payments are made in good faith using a reasonable and 
        objective formula which is consistently applied;
            (2) in the case of a private foundation (as defined in 
        section 509 of such Code), any payment described in paragraph 
        (1) shall not be treated as made to a disqualified person for 
        purposes of section 4941 of such Code; and
            (3) the receipt of any payment described in paragraphs (1) 
        or (2), or any payment from any Federal, State, or local 
        government, or agency or instrumentality thereof, by reason of 
        the death, injury, wounding, or illness of any firefighter 
        incurred as the result of the October 2006 Esperanza Incident 
        fire in southern California, shall not be treated as gross 
        income under such Code.
    (b) Effective Date.--This section shall apply to payments made on 
or after October 26, 2006.
                                 <all>
```
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 4, 2019

No. 04-19-00648-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF M.A., A CHILD,

From the 166th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016-PA-00285

Honorable Peter A. Sakai, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Kristin Anderson’s notification of late reporter’s record is hereby GRANTED. Time is

extended to October 14, 2019.

It is so ORDERED on this 4th day of October 2019.

PER CURIAM

 ATTESTED TO: _______________________

 LUZ ESTRADA,

 Chief Deputy Clerk
#### Russell *v.*The State.

1. That the presiding judge in the exercise of his discretion, during the trial of a criminal case, allowed the solicitor-general to propound leading questions to the State’s witnesses, presents no cause for anew trial, especially when it appears that no objection to these questions was made by counsel for the accused and the ground of the motion fails to disclose what the questions were.

2. It appearing that the accused was represented at his trial by nine attorneys, that only one of them made an affidavit as to ignorance of the alleged newly discovered evidence, and that this evidence itself would not probably produce a different verdict, a new trial cannot be granted for this cause.

3. An affidavit presented to the presiding judge after a motion for a new trial has been heard and finally decided, though identified by the signature of the judge, is no part of the record and cannot be considered by this court in reviewing the judgment refusing a new trial. This is so although the facts set forth in the affidavit may *595be material and such as might have influenced the judge in making up his decision on the motion.

4. Although the principal witnesses for the State conflicted in some respects with themselves and in some -with each other, there was ample- evidence to sustain the verdict, and the same having .been approved by the trial judge, this court is constrained to allow it to stand. *Judgment affirmed.*

June 11, 1894.

Indictment for rape. Before Judge Richard II. Clark. Clayton superior court. March term, 1894.

Hutcheson & Key, Doyal & Doyal, Hodnett & Wright, Watterson & Kimsey and J. P. Chatfield, for plaintiff in error. J. S. Candler, solicitor-general, by G. W. Stevens, *contra.*

The defendant was convicted of assault with intent to rape, committed on a girl of eleven years. The grounds of his motion for a new trial sufficiently appear from the head-notes.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

NO. CAAP-24-0000275

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I

HYE JA CHOI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.

KOREAN CHRISTIAN CHURCH; REX KIM; IRIS KIM; DANIEL CHANG;

DIANA CHANG; ANNA KIM; JOSEPH KIM; SONG K. (KUN) CHOI; KRIS CHOO;

MI KYEONG KIM; SUN YOUNG KIM; NAOMI LIM; HUNG JA KWAK;

SUNG OK KIM; ESTHER KWON; SYLVIA GILLESPIE; JIN YU; SERA SUNG;

MYOUNG STEMPIN; SOO JIN CHIKASUYE; YOUNG AE HAN; HANNAH CHANG,

Defendants-Appellees

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT

(CIVIL NO. 1CCV-22-0001662)

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

(By: Leonard, Acting Chief Judge, Hiraoka and Guidry, JJ.)

Upon review of the record, it appears that:

(1) The statement of jurisdiction and opening brief

were due on or before June 10, 2024, and July 9, 2024,

respectively;

(2) Self-represented Plaintiff-Appellant Hye Ja Choi

(Choi) failed to file either document, or request an extension of

time;

(3) On July 12, 2024, the appellate clerk entered a

default notice informing Choi that the time for filing the

statement of jurisdiction and opening brief had expired, the

matter would be called to the court's attention on July 22, 2024,

for appropriate action, which could include dismissal of the

appeal, under Hawai i Rules of Appellate Procedure Rules 12.1(e)

and 30, and Choi could request relief from default by motion; and

Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-24-0000275

01-AUG-2024

08:06 AM

Dkt. 23 ODSD
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

(4) Choi has not taken any further action in this

appeal.

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the appeal is

dismissed. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all pending motions are

dismissed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai i, August 1, 2024.

/s/ Katherine G. Leonard

Acting Chief Judge

/s/ Keith K. Hiraoka

Associate Judge

/s/ Kimberly T. Guidry

Associate Judge

2
Mid Day

Victoria Chang

A square table put out just for 

me. In Emily Dickinson’s 

bedroom. My back to her dead 

mother in the other room. My 

front to her bed. Lace curtains 

remind me of women before me. 

She lived until 55. Anne Truitt 

until 83. I am 52, prowling at the 

edge of revelation. How Truitt 

painted the bright red 

horizontally, then vertically to 

smooth out the eyes. Then 

sanded down the tears that came 

through. How she wanted what 

was left to be even, burnished 

alive. I imagine her head on the 

bed, tilted past death, her dashes 

in my direction. Who gets to 

speak, who gets to brush. Whose 

tendons of mind are visible. Who 

gets to scratch. Who gets to 

sand. Who gets to spend our 

days inside thinking, gnashing 

our lives into 10-foot tall 

rectangular thoughts. I run my 

hands through my hair hoping to 

leave behind a black strand. An 

unquestionable strand. Ineligible 

split end. How strange to be in 

this room demanding awe. To sit 

down and write a poem where I 

could never have been. On the 

other side of the country, at the 

same time, Chinatowns were 

burned down. What am I to do 

with all these seams. The world 

that keeps growing back. The 

women who are adjuncts to the 

world. The world that is 

unfaithful. What if I am no longer 

in awe of the stiff light. Expiring 

rims of time, smoothing only 

itself. I had an hour and now my 

time is up. She’s gone and she’s 

gone. Still I am here pressed 

between her and hurt, between 

the cross-talking ghosts. Taking 

what they’ll give. Her dead 

mother behind me. My dead 

mother beyond me. All the

beheaded love mixing at noon in 

red. After others die, where do we 

put our sadness? After we die, 

where does our sadness go?
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4095 

To extend the period in which the State of Louisiana may spend funds 

from the additional allotment provided to the State under the Social 

Services Block Grant program for necessary expenses related to the 

consequences of Hurricane Katrina and other hurricanes in the Gulf 

of Mexico in 2005. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 6, 2006 

Ms. LANDRIEU introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend the period in which the State of Louisiana may 

spend funds from the additional allotment provided to 

the State under the Social Services Block Grant program 

for necessary expenses related to the consequences of 

Hurricane Katrina and other hurricanes in the Gulf of 

Mexico in 2005. 

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


jcorcoran on PRODPC62 with BILLS
2 

•S 4095 IS

1 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF PERIOD FOR EXPENDITURE OF 

2 ADDITIONAL SSBG ALLOTMENT FOR NEC3 ESSARY EXPENSES RELATED TO THE CON4 SEQUENCES OF HURRICANE KATRINA AND 

5 OTHER HURRICANES IN THE GULF OF MEX6 ICO IN 2005. 

7 Notwithstanding section 2002(c) of the Social Secu8 rity Act (42 U.S.C. 1397a(c)), the additional allotment for 

9 the State of Louisiana from amounts appropriated under 

10 the heading ‘‘Social Services Block Grant’’, under the 

11 heading ‘‘Administration for Children and Families’’, 

12 under the heading ‘‘Department of Health and Human 

13 Services’’ of the Department of Defense, Emergency Sup14 plemental Appropriations to Address Hurricanes in the 

15 Gulf of Mexico, and Pandemic Influenza Act, 2006 (Public 

16 Law 109–148, 119 Stat. 2768) shall remain available for 

17 obligation through September 30, 2008. 

Æ 


jcorcoran on PRODPC62 with BILLS
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TAMARA TRICIA ROBERSON,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

PACIFIC LUTHERAN UNIVERSITY,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 13-36081

D.C. No. 3:13-cv-05323-RJB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

Robert J. Bryan, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 25, 2015** 

Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Tamara Tricia Roberson appeals pro se from the district court’s summary

judgment in her employment action alleging racial discrimination in violation of

Title VII. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo,

Clicks Billiards, Inc. v. Sixshooters, Inc., 251 F.3d 1252, 1257 (9th Cir. 2001), and

FILED

SEP 04 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Roberson

failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant’s

legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for not interviewing or hiring Roberson for

the position were pretextual. See Hawn v. Exec. Jet Mgmt., Inc., 615 F.3d 1151,

1155-56, 1158 (9th Cir. 2010) (providing framework for analyzing a

discrimination claim under Title VII); see also Earl v. Nielsen Media Research,

Inc., 658 F.3d 1108, 1112-13 (9th Cir. 2011) (discussing ways plaintiff can

demonstrate pretext and explaining that, although plaintiff’s burden is not onerous,

plaintiff must produce specific and substantial facts to create a triable dispute as to

pretext).

AFFIRMED.

2 13-36081
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

______________________________ MOHAMMED AL-ADAHI, et al., : : Petitioners, : : v. : Civil Action No. 05-280 (GK) : BARACK H. OBAMA, et al., : : Respondents. : ______________________________: ORDER On October 7, 2009, Petitioner Zahir Omar Khamis Bin Hamdoun’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus was stayed for 120 days [Dkt. No. 476]. Because the 120-day stay has expired, it is hereby ORDERED , that Petitioner show cause no later than February 25, 2010 as to why his petition shou l d n o t be dismissed. The Government shall file its response by March 4, 2010
.

/ s / February 18, 2010 Gladys Kessler United States District Judge

Copies to: Attorneys of Record via ECF
#### In re K.S. *&*J.S.

Case below: 181 N.C. App. 606

No. 122P07

Respondent’s (Mother) PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA06-777)

Denied 06/27/07
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





Asher
Zwebner, the Interim Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of
Suspect Detection Systems Inc. (the “Company”), certifies, under the standards
set forth and solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge, the
Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2008, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in that Form 10-K
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and  results of operations of the Company.





Date:
      March 31, 2009
            /s/ Asher ZwebnerTitle:
      Interim Chief Executive Officer,Chief
      Financial Officer and Sole Director





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