alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 21.1







Subsidiaries of Cardiff Lexington Corp.



|Name                                            | D/B/A or Assumed Name         | Jurisdiction | Ownership
|----------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------- | ------------ | ---------
|We Three, LLC                                   | Affordable Housing Initiative | Tennessee    | 100%     
|Edge View Properties, Inc                       | n/a                           | Idaho        | 100%     
|JM Enterprises 1, Inc. (Sold December 31,
2021) | Key Tax                       | Delaware     | 100%     
|Platinum Tax Defenders, LLC                     | n/a                           | California   | 100%     
|Nova Ortho and Spine, PLLC                      | n/a                           | Florida      | 100%
Exhibit 32.1 Certificate of the Chief Executive and Officer Chief Financial Officer

Certification of the Chief Executive Officer 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 Northeast Bancorp (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Richard Wayne, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 the Company for the dates and the periods covered by the Report.

This certification shall not be deemed
filed for any purpose, nor shall it be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.



|                   |  |  |  |                                      
|------------------ |  |  |  | -------------------------------------
|September 27, 2011 |  |  |  | /s/ Richard Wayne                    
|                   |  |  |  | Richard Wayne Chief
Executive Officer

Certification of the Chief Financial Officer 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 Northeast Bancorp (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2011 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Claire S. Bean, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) 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 the Company for the dates and the periods covered by the Report.

This certification shall not be deemed filed for any purpose, nor shall it be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.



|                   |  |  |  |                                       
|------------------ |  |  |  | --------------------------------------
|September 27, 2011 |  |  |  | /s/ Claire S. Bean                    
|                   |  |  |  | Claire S. Bean Chief
Financial Officer
##### 



EXHIBIT 23.1 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos.
333-85866, 333-63855, 333-34197 and 333-34050) pertaining to the Atlantis Plastics, Inc. 2001
Stock Option Plan, the Atlantis Plastics, Inc. 1998 Stock Option Plan, the Atlantis Plastics, Inc.
1997 Stock Option Plan and the Atlantis Plastics, Inc. Deferred Compensation Plan, respectively,
of our report dated March 25, 2005, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and
schedule of Atlantis Plastics, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended
December 31, 2004. /s/ Ernst & Young LLP Atlanta, Georgia
March 25, 2005
IV 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 665 

Reaffirming the strong partnership between the Kingdom of Denmark and 

the United States. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 30, 2019 

Mr. KEATING submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Foreign Affairs 

RESOLUTION 

Reaffirming the strong partnership between the Kingdom 

of Denmark and the United States. 

Whereas the Kingdom of Denmark and the United States 

have enjoyed more than two centuries of close relations; 

Whereas Denmark has long been a key partner in bilateral 

and multilateral efforts to address global challenges and 

threats; 

Whereas Denmark was a founding member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in 1949 and has continued to support the trans-Atlantic security alliance; 

Whereas Danish forces have participated in United States-led 

military missions in both Afghanistan and Iraq and the 

United States-led international coalition against the Islamic State terrorist organization; 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 665 IH 

Whereas Denmark participates in a wide range of NATO 

missions, including Operation Enhanced Forward Presence, and contributes to numerous peacekeeping operations throughout the world; 

Whereas Denmark has been an active and cooperative member in the Enhanced Partnership in Northern Europe (ePINE) to contribute to a free and peaceful vision of Europe and has partnered with the United States and other 

Baltic and Nordic countries on security, health, and economic matters; 

Whereas Denmark is a fellow member of the Arctic Council 

and has long supported peaceful cooperation in the Arctic 

region; 

Whereas the United States is one of Denmark’s largest nonEuropean trade partners, and the United States exports 

$2,200,000,000 worth of goods and $5,500,000,000 of 

services to Denmark; and 

Whereas the Danish Government reports that Danish investments support over 75,000 United States jobs: Now, 

therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) recognizes the significance of our enduring 

3 political, economic, and security partnership with the 

4 Kingdom of Denmark; 

5 (2) recognizes the important role Denmark 

6 plays in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the 

7 Arctic Council, and other intergovernmental organi8 zations and missions to promote global peace, secu9 rity, and prosperity; 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HRES 665 IH 

1 (3) expresses gratitude and appreciation to the 

2 people of Denmark and the members of the Danish 

3 military for their efforts and sacrifices to make our 

4 world more secure; and 

5 (4) calls for continued cooperation and partner6 ship to further strengthen the longstanding alliance 

7 between Denmark and the United States. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 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 Report of Stem Cell Therapy International, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended December 31, 2006, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Periodic
Report"), I, Calvin Cao, President (Principal Executive Officer) of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1. the Periodic 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 Periodic Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

Dated:     February 12, 2007    /s/Calvin Cao
                                ---------------------------------------
                                Calvin Cao, Chief Executive Officer
#### WALKER v. WALKER.

District Court, S. D. New York.

April 10, 1941.

Emerin I. Goldberger, of New York City, for plaintiff.

John A. O’Melia, of New York City, for defendant.

KNOX, District Judge.

By notice served before answer filed, plaintiff seeks to take the deposition of defendant pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 26, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c. Defendant moves to vacate said notice because not in compliance with Rule 26, which provides that an examination before answer may be had only upon leave of the court.

The defendant is technically accurate in objecting on the grounds that the notice is premature. F.R.C.P. 26(a); Rejsenhoff v. Colonial Navigation Co., D.C.S.D.N.Y., 1 F.R.D. 395.

From the opposing affidavit, however, there is reason to believe that defendant may leave the jurisdiction of this court, thus rendering a future attempt to take his deposition difficult. No reasons appear why an order should not be made directing the examination to be taken.

Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 30(b), an order will be made directing defendant to attend for examination at the place indicated in the notice herein or such other place as may be agreed upon, on April 17, 1940 (3 days after the last day to. answer), or, if the time to answer is enlarged by motion or otherwise, then on a day three days after answer is filed.

The motion is denied on the above conditions. Settle order.
|   | • | the      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended      June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission      (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of 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 results of operations of the      Company. |
|--------|---------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                                                                           |   |   |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
| Date:      August 12, 2008                                                                |   |   |
|                                                                                           |   |   |
| /s/    DR. BARRY W. KARLIN         |   |   |
| Dr. Barry W.      Karlin                                                             |   |   |
| Chairman      and Chief Executive Officer                                                      |   |   |
| (Principal      Executive Officer)                                                             |   |   |
Exhibit 10.28

In connection with the acquisition of Intelligent Reasoning Systems, Inc.
("IRSI"), completed on July 16, 2001, the Company cancelled indebtedness in the
total aggregate amount of approximately $567,000 owed by Jon Hopper to IRSI. Mr.
Hopper was the former President of IRSI and following the acquisition of IRSI by
the Company was employed as an executive officer of the Company.


                                       1.
EXHIBIT 32.1

 

 

WHOLEHEALTH PRODUCTS, INC.

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 Wholehealth Products, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period  ended May 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Joseph Arcaro, Principal  Executive  Officer of the Company, certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to 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 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.

 

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

 

 

 

 Dated: October 5, 2012

 

By: /s/ Joseph Arcaro

Joseph Arcaro

Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)

EXHIBIT 32.2

 

 

WHOLEHEALTH PRODUCTS, INC.

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 Wholehealth Products, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q  for the period  ended May 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Joseph Arcaro, Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to 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 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.

 

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

 

 

 

Dated: October 5, 2012

By: /s/ Joseph Arcaro

Joseph Arcaro 

Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ali Williams, Appellant.

[822 NYS2d 715]

Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated September 21, 1998 *(People v Williams,*253 AD2d 833 [1998]), affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered November 8, 1993.

*1029Ordered that the application is denied.

The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel (see *Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745 [1983]; *People v Stultz,*2 NY3d 277 [2004]). Prudenti, EJ., Florio, Krausman and Luciano, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

CHARLES WHITTEN, 

 Petitioner - Appellant, 

v. 

DEAN WILLIAMS; THE ATTORNEY 

GENERAL OF THE STATE OF 

COLORADO, 

 Respondents - Appellees. 

No. 19-1289 

(D.C. No. 1:19-CV-00721-LTB-GPG) 

(D. Colo.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*

_________________________________ 

Before McHUGH, KELLY, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

Petitioner-Appellant Charles Whitten, a state inmate appearing pro se, seeks a 

certificate of appealability (COA) allowing him to appeal from the district court’s 

denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 application as time-barred and not subject to equitable 

tolling. Whitten v. Williams, No. 19-cv-00721-LTB-GPG (July 26, 2019). Because 

the district court’s procedural ruling is not reasonably debatable, we deny a COA and 

dismiss the appeal. 

 * This order is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the 

case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its 

persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

November 15, 2019

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court
2 

In 2012, Mr. Whitten was convicted of two counts of witness intimidation and 

four counts of witness tampering in Colorado state court. Mr. Whitten’s conviction 

was affirmed on direct appeal and the Colorado Supreme Court denied his petition 

for certiorari on April 20, 2015. His conviction became final on July 20, 2015. 

Thereafter, Mr. Whitten sought state post-conviction relief. The assigned magistrate 

judge determined that the one-year limitation period, 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d), for Mr. 

Whitten to file this action expired on September 26, 2018. Mr. Whitten did not file 

until March 11, 2019. 

To obtain a COA, Mr. Whitten must make “a substantial showing of the denial 

of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Where, as here, the district court 

denies a § 2254 petition on procedural grounds, the movant must demonstrate “that 

jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of 

the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable 

whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 

529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Mr. Whitten argues that his appellate counsel told him 

that he had one year from the denial of state post-conviction relief to file his federal 

habeas petition and that his constitutional claims are reasonably debatable. The 

district court’s conclusion that Mr. Whitten’s equitable tolling claim did not present 

extraordinary circumstances and that he had not demonstrated actual innocence are 

not reasonably debatable. See Sigala v. Bravo, 656 F.3d 1125, 1128 (10th Cir. 

2011); Gibson v. Klinger, 232 F.3d 799, 808 (10th Cir. 2000). 
3 

We DENY a COA, DENY IFP, and DISMISS the appeal. 

Entered for the Court 

Paul J. Kelly, Jr. 

Circuit Judge
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

WAYNE WRIGHT, INDIVIDUALLY, 

AND WAYNE WRIGHT, LLP, D/B/A 

WAYNE WRIGHT INJURY LAWYERS,

 Appellants,

v.

ERIKA V. HERNANDEZ,

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§ 

No. 08-14-00303-CV

Appeal from the

243rd Judicial District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 2014DCV1123)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was error in the 

trial court’s order denying Appellants’ motion to compel arbitration. We therefore reverse the 

trial court’s order denying Appellants’ motion to compel arbitration and remand this matter to 

the trial court for entry of an order compelling arbitration. We further order that Appellants 

recover from Appellee all appellate costs, for which let execution issue. This decision shall be 

certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2015.

STEVEN L. HUGHES, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
Exhibit 23.1

                     Independent Auditors' Consent



The Partners
FFP Partners, L.P.:

We consent to  incorporation  by reference in the  registration  statement  (No.
33-73170) on Form S-8 of FFP Partners,  L.P. of our report dated March 30, 1999,
relating to the consolidated balance sheets of FFP Partners, L.P. and subsidiary
as of December 31, 1998,  and  December 28, 1997,  and the related  consolidated
statements of operations,  partners' capital, and cash flow for the period ended
December 31, 1998, which report appears in the December 31, 1998,  annual report
on Form 10-K of FFP Partners, L.P.



                                     KPMG LLP



Fort Worth, Texas
April 15, 1999
#### Future Purchases, LLC, Respondent, v City of New York et al., Appellants.

[852 NYS2d 837]

The motion court properly converted the action to a CPLR article 78 proceeding *(see SJL Realty Corp. v City of Poughkeepsie,*133 AD2d 682, 683 [1987]). The limitations period began to run when petitioner learned of the existence of the subject tax liens. This was no later than April 20, 2004 when it commenced an action in the Housing Part, Civil Court to remove the liens. When that action was withdrawn for lack of jurisdiction, petitioner failed to commence the new proceeding within four months *(see Matter of 80 E. 116th St. Corp. v City of N.Y. Dept. of Hous. Preserv. & Dev.,*245 AD2d 107 [1997]; *cf. Matter of Ijbara v City of New York,*300 AD2d 251, 253 [2002]). Concur— Lippman, P.J., Gonzalez, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.
#### EMI Progressive Equities, Inc., Appellant, v Alfonso A. Figueroa, Respondent.

[821 NYS2d 760]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mary Ann Brigantti-Hughes, J.), entered July 11, 2005, which, in an action for specific performance, denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

An issue of fact exists as to whether plaintiff buyer could, after September 1, 2004, reasonably rely on the express authority to agree to a closing date conferred on defendant seller’s attorney in the contract of sale, or otherwise reasonably believe that the seller’s attorney continued to have such authority *(see Ford v Unity Hosp.,*32 NY2d 464, 472-473 [1973]). Such issue is raised by the seller’s letter dated September 1, 2004 addressed and hand-delivered to his attorney and, for present purposes, admittedly received by the buyer’s attorney on September 1. Concur—Andrias, J.E, Nardelli, Gonzalez, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Sherrie Godfrey, Appellant.

[822 NYS2d 135]

*624Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Crecca, J.), rendered August 12, 2005, convicting her of reckless endangerment in the first degree (two counts), upon her plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s claim that the plea was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary is unpreserved for appellate review since she did not move to vacate her plea on that basis *(see People v Pellegrino,*60 NY2d 636 [1983]; *People v Velazquez,*21 AD3d 388 [2005]). Furthermore, while the mental evaluations which were performed on the defendant revealed that she had a “major depressant disorder,” there is no basis in the record to support the conclusion that at the time of the plea proceeding, the defendant lacked the capacity to understand the proceedings against her or that she was unable to assist in her defense *(see*CPL 730.30 [1]; *People v Phillips,*243 AD2d 514 [1997]; *People v Rowley,*222 AD2d 718 [1995]; *People v Hollis,*204 AD2d 569 [1994]). Moreover, the psychiatrist and psychologists who examined the defendant both before and after the plea found that she was competent to stand trial *(see People v Rodney,*245 AD2d 394 [1997]).

The defendant’s challenge to her enhanced sentence also is unpreserved for appellate review since she failed to object to the sentence or move to vacate her plea on that basis *(see People v Thomas, 2*AD3d 758 [2003]; *People v Howze,*243 AD2d 652 [1997]; *People v Gayle,*224 AD2d 710 [1996]). In any event, after the defendant entered her plea, the court expressly warned the defendant that she would face the imposition of an enhanced sentence if, inter alia, she did not cooperate with the Department of Probation. Since the defendant failed to cooperate with the Department of Probation, the court was authorized to impose the enhanced sentence *(see People v Figgins,*87 NY2d 840 [1995]; *People v Velez,*212 AD2d 647 [1995]; *People v Gayle, supra).*Miller, J.P., Ritter, Luciano, Spolzino and Dillon, JJ., concur.