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 2004








In connection with the Quarterly Report of All Grade Mining, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2013, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Gary Kouletas, President of the Company, respectfully certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2004, that:





That as Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, I conducted an evaluation of the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting as of March 31, 2013. In making this evaluation, I used the framework in Internal Control – Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). Based on our evaluation under the framework in Internal Control – Integrated Framework, I concluded that our internal control over financial reporting was not effective as of March 31, 2013.





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





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





/s/ Gary Kouletas


Gary Kouletas


President (Principal Executive and Financial Officer)





Date: 24 July 2013





This Certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not be deemed “filed” by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, whether made before or after the date of this Report, irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to All Grade Mining, Inc. and will be retained by All Grade Mining, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-65,795]

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on April 15, 2009 in response to a worker petition filed by workers of Caye Upholstery, Amory, Mississippi.

The petitioners have requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 19th day of May 2009.

Elliott S. Kushner,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E9-13892 Filed 6-12-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999             SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                       1,171,445               1,019,267
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   73,872                 189,475
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,245,317               1,208,742
<PP&E>                                       3,824,721               2,485,536
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,154,831                 676,083
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,915,207               3,018,195
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          311,741                 374,536
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                        35,900                  35,900
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,567,566               2,607,759
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,915,207               3,018,195
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,001,218                 936,424
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  643,082                 411,222
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0                       0
<INCOME-TAX>                                   136,092                 199,500
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                   222,044                 325,702
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0                       0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                       0


</TABLE>
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

691 

CA 11-02220 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., FAHEY, PERADOTTO, SCONIERS, AND MARTOCHE, JJ. 

 

DAWN M. CLOSE, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DARIEN LAKE THEME PARK AND CAMPING RESORT, INC., 

DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

 

BENNETT, DIFILIPPO & KURTZHALTS, LLP, EAST AURORA (MAURA C. SEIBOLD OF

COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.

DAMON MOREY LLP, BUFFALO (AMY ARCHER FLAHERTY OF COUNSEL), FOR

DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Patrick

H. NeMoyer, J.), entered January 28, 2011 in a personal injury action. 

The order granted the motion of defendant for summary judgment and

dismissed the complaint. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs. 

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for

injuries that she sustained on a water ride in an amusement park owned

by defendant. Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, Supreme Court

properly granted the motion of defendant for summary judgment

dismissing the complaint. “[B]y engaging in a sport or recreational

activity, a participant consents to those commonly appreciated risks

which are inherent in and arise out of the nature of the sport

generally and flow from such participation” (Morgan v State of New

York, 90 NY2d 471, 484; see Anand v Kapoor, 15 NY3d 946, 947-948;

Turcotte v Fell, 68 NY2d 432, 439; Maddox v City of New York, 66 NY2d

270, 277-278). Awareness of the risk is “ ‘to be assessed against the

background of the skill and experience of the particular plaintiff’ ”

(Morgan, 90 NY2d at 486, quoting Maddox, 66 NY2d at 278). Here,

“defendant sustained its burden of proving its prima facie entitlement

to judgment as a matter of law . . . by presenting evidence that the

plaintiff understood and voluntarily assumed the risks inherent in the

activity at issue” (Leslie v Splish Splash at Adventureland, Inc., 1

AD3d 320, 321). Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, she failed to

raise a triable issue of fact whether defendant engaged in reckless or

intentional conduct or whether there existed a dangerous condition

that concealed or unreasonably increased the risks of the ride (see

Youmans v Maple Ski Ridge, Inc., 53 AD3d 957, 959; see also Loewenthal 
-2- 691 

CA 11-02220 

v Catskill Funland, 237 AD2d 262, 263-264).

Entered: June 8, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
Exhibit 32(c)

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

I,





|(1) | The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2005 (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 as of the dates and for the periods presented in the Report.









|/s/ Hugh T. McDonaldHugh T. McDonald
Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer 
of Entergy Arkansas, Inc.
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date:	March 9, 2006
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000006494
<NAME>                        Andrea Electronics Corporation
<MULTIPLIER>                                           1
<CURRENCY>                                  U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                JAN-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                 DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                        1
<CASH>                                         9,153,148
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  2,770,703
<ALLOWANCES>                                     202,521
<INVENTORY>                                    7,123,747
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              19,315,415
<PP&E>                                         1,930,506
<DEPRECIATION>                                 2,156,993
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                49,853,402
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          5,293,930
<BONDS>                                        1,485,077
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          7,187,077
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                       6,621,269
<OTHER-SE>                                    30,043,287
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  49,853,402
<SALES>                                       17,112,487
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              17,112,487
<CGS>                                         11,908,751
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 11,908,751
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              12,354,471
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               306,843
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (7,176,993)
<INCOME-TAX>                                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (7,176,993)
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (7,176,993)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        (0.56)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      (0.56)



</TABLE>
#### MAR POY v. UNITED STATES.

(District Court, W. D. Texas, El Paso Division.

July 21, 1911.)

No. 272.

Aliens (§ 32*) — Deportation—Citizenship.

In Chinese deportation proceedings, evidence *held*to require a finding that respondent was born in-the United States, and was therefore a citizen not subject to deportation.

(Ed. Note. — For other eases, see Aliens, Cent. Dig. §§ 93-95; Dec. Dig. § 32.*

What Chinese persons are excluded from the United States, see note to Wong You v. United States, 104 C. C. A. 538.]

Deportation proceedings by' the United States against Mar Poy. From an order of deportation, the alien appeals.

Reversed.

This is an appeal from an order of deportation passed by the United States Commissioner at El Paso. The appellant claims to be 'a citizen of the United States by virtue of his birth in San Francisco, Cal. At the hearing before the commissioner the appellant, failing to produce evidence of his nativity, was ordered deported. Pending the appeal thé testimony of two Chinese witnesses of San Francisco was taken to prove his birth in that city. There also appears in the record the testimony of the appellant in his own behalf and that of the Chinese interpreter and the deputy marshal introduced by the government. The statement made by the appellant to the immigration authorities at the time of his arrest was also submitted in evidence by the assistant district attorney.

Turney & Burges and W. D. Howe, for appellant.

S. Engelking, Asst. U. S. Atty.

*

For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, *&*Rep’r Indexes

MAXEY, District Judge

(after stating the facts as above). The present is purely a fact case. The two witnesses for appellant — whose testimony is unimpeached — tell a plain, straightforward, and apparently truthful story, touching the birth of the appellant in San Francisco, and their knowledge of his whereabouts until he reached the age of 18 or 20 years. Although the statements made by the appellant in his testimony taken by Mr. Oliver after the order of deportation was entered by the commissioner differed in some respects from those made by him about the time of his arrest to the immigration officials, yet it must be remembered that he is unacquainted with our language, and that the statements, made to the immigration authorities, were made at an ex parte examination in the absence of either attorney or friends. The circumstances considered, due allowance should be made for admissions thus elicited.

Upon a review of the record the court is of the opinion that the appellant has fairly proved his American citizenship.

The courts should not be expected to ignore altogether the testimony of witnesses who tell *'a*candid and consistent story and who stand unimpeached.

The order of deportation will be reversed and the appellant dis- ■ charged.
#### Ramandeep SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-71232.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 6, 2006.*

Filed Nov. 14, 2006.

Bart Klein, Esq., Law Offices of Bart Klein, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.

Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Mark L. Gross, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division/Appellate Section, O. Benton Curtis, III, Dept of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before LEAVY, McKEOWN, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Ramandeep Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying Singh’s applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) based on an adverse credibility determination. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and deny the petition for review.

*655We review for substantial evidence an adverse credibility determination and will reverse only if the record compels a contrary conclusion. *Singh-Kaur v. INS,*183 F.3d 1147, 1149-50 (9th Cir.1999).

Substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility determination because Singh’s written declaration in support of his asylum application differed in material ways from his later asylum hearing testimony when his declaration omitted three arrests in which Indian police allegedly beat him. This omission goes to the “heart of [the] asylum claim” because the arrests form the core of Singh’s asylum claim. *See Li v. Ashcroft,*378 F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir.2004); *see also Alvarez-Santos v. INS,*332 F.3d 1245, 1254 (9th Cir. 2003) (concluding that the omission of a dramatic and pivotal event from applicant's asylum application can serve as a basis for an adverse credibility determination). Accordingly, the record does not compel a finding that Singh was credible, and therefore the asylum claim fails. *See Singh-Kaur,*183 F.3d at 1149-50.

Because the asylum claim fails, Singh’s claim for withholding of removal, which requires a higher standard of proof, fails as well. *See Yeimane-Berhe v. Ashcroft,*393 F.3d 907, 910 (9th Cir.2004).

Singh’s request for protection under the CAT also fails because Singh relied upon the same statements that the IJ determined not to be credible. *See Farah v. Ashcroft,*348 F.3d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: In re Richlene Joannides

Appellate case number: 01-13-00755-CV

Trial court case number: 2006-19543

Trial court: County Court at Law No 3 of Fort Bend County

The Court is in receipt of Real Party in Interest, Successor Dependent Administrator 

Richard L. Tate’s Third Report to the Court filed August 12, 2014.

If no motion to dismiss is filed by Relator prior to October 1, 2014, Richard L. Tate is 

ORDERED to file a settlement status report by that date.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: _____/s/ Harvey Brown

X Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: August 14, 2014
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3183 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the nonbusiness 

energy property credit to roofs with pigmented coatings which meet 

Energy Star program requirements. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 25, 2010 

Mr. WYDEN (for himself and Mr. MENENDEZ) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend 

the nonbusiness energy property credit to roofs with pigmented coatings which meet Energy Star program requirements. 

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


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3183 IS

1 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF NONBUSINESS ENERGY PROP2 ERTY CREDIT TO ROOFS WITH PIGMENTED 

3 COATINGS WHICH MEET ENERGY STAR PRO4 GRAM REQUIREMENTS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 25C(c)(1) of the Internal 

6 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting ‘‘or pig7 mented coatings’’ after ‘‘appropriate cooling granules’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 this section shall apply to property placed in service after 

10 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          71,781
<SECURITIES>                                   467,215
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                71,781
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 539,460
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          472,233
<BONDS>                                        297,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          4
<COMMON>                                       293,152
<OTHER-SE>                                  21,236,035
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   539,460
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  190,221
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                30,413
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (587)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (230,634)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (230,634)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (115,058)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 107 (Friday, June 5, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27063-27064]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-13045]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Office of Thrift Supervision


BankUnited, FSB Coral Gables, FL; Notice of Appointment of 
Receiver

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the authority contained in 
section 5(d)(2) of the Home Owners' Loan Act, the Office of Thrift 
Supervision has duly

[[Page 27064]]

appointed the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as sole Receiver 
for BankUnited, FSB, Coral Gables, Florida (OTS No. 8045), on May 21, 
2009.

    Dated: May 29, 2009.

    By the Office of Thrift Supervision.
Sandra E. Evans,
Federal Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. E9-13045 Filed 6-4-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6720-01-M