alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32



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 All American Pet Company, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31,
2013, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Barry Schwartz, Chief
Executive Officer and Principal Financial and Accounting 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
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.



| | Date: June 20, 2013                      
| | -----------------------------------------
| |                                          
| | /S/ Barry Schwartz                       
| | Barry Schwartz                           
| | CEO and                                  
| | Principal Financial andAccounting Officer
<Page>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 4.7



                              CERTIFICATE OF TRUST
                                       OF
                               CC FUNDING TRUST I


     THIS CERTIFICATE OF TRUST of CC Funding Trust I (the "TRUST"), dated as of
November 27, 2001, is being duly executed and filed by the undersigned, as
trustees, with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware to form a
business trust under the Delaware Business Trust Act (12 DEL. CODE '3801 ET
SEQ.).

     1. NAME. The name of the business trust being formed hereby is "CC Funding
Trust I."

     2. DELAWARE TRUSTEE. The name and business address of the trustee of the
Trust with a principal place of business in the State of Delaware are as
follows: The Bank of New York (Delaware), 700 White Clay Center, Route 273,
Newark, DE 19711.

     3. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Certificate of Trust shall be effective at the time
of its filing with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware.

     4. COUNTERPARTS. This Certificate of Trust may be executed in one or more
counterparts.



                           [SIGNATURE PAGE TO FOLLOW]



<Page>


     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, being all of the trustees of the Trust
at the time of filing of this Certificate of Trust, have executed this
Certificate of Trust as of the date first above written.



                                       THE BANK OF NEW YORK
                                       (DELAWARE),
                                       as Delaware Trustee


                                       By:    /s/ WILLIAM T. LEWIS
                                           ----------------------------
                                           Name:    William T. Lewis
                                           Title:   Senior Vice President


                                       THE BANK OF NEW YORK,
                                       as Property Trustee


                                       By:    /s/ PAUL J. SCHMALZEL
                                           ----------------------------
                                           Name:    Paul J. Schmalzel
                                           Title:   Vice President



                                       WENDY L. AUMILLER,
                                       as Administrative Trustee


                                       By:    /s/ WENDY L. AUMILLER
                                           ----------------------------


                                       2
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A15I0229. RAPHAEL DONALDO SICHERON v. THE STATE.

Raphael Donaldo Sicheron, defendant in the criminal case below, seeks

interlocutory review of the trial court’s May 27, 2015, order denying his motion to

suppress. The court entered its certificate of immediate review on Tuesday, June 9.

Under OCGA § 5-6-34 (b), a party may request interlocutory review only if the

trial court certifies within ten days of entry of the order at issue that immediate review

should be had. If the certificate of immediate review is not entered within that tenday period, it is untimely, and the party seeking review must wait until the final

judgment to appeal. See OCGA § 5-6-34 (b); Wilcher v. Confederate Packaging,

Inc., 287 Ga. App. 451 (1) (651 SE2d 790) (2007). Here, the certificate of immediate

review was entered 13 days after the order was entered. Accordingly, we lack

jurisdiction to consider this application for interlocutory appeal, and it is hereby

DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

07/17/2015

July 17, 2015
**EXHIBIT 32**

 

**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as created by Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the following certifications are being madeto accompany the Registrant’s quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the fiscalquarter ended January 30, 2010:**

 

**Certification of Chief ExecutiveOfficer(1)**

 

----

 

Pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as created by Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Neiman Marcus, Inc.(the Company) hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:

 

(i) the QuarterlyReport on Form 10-Q of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended January 30,2010 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) orSection 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended; and

 

(ii) the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Dated:  March 9, 2010 | /s/  BURTON M. TANSKY                  |
|----------------------------|----------------------------------------|
|                       | Burton  M. Tansky                      |
|                       | President  and Chief Executive Officer |

 

**Certification of Chief FinancialOfficer(1)**

 

----

 

Pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as created by Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Neiman Marcus, Inc.(the Company) hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:

 

(i) the QuarterlyReport on Form 10-Q of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended January 30,2010 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) orSection 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended; and

 

(ii) the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Dated:  March 9, 2010 | /s/  JAMES E. SKINNER                                 |
|----------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------|
|                       | James  E. Skinner                                     |
|                       | Executive  Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |

** **

----

(1) A signed original for this written statement required by Section 906has been provided to Neiman Marcus, Inc. and will be retained by NeimanMarcus, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission orits staff upon request.

 

----
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 15-0386V

Filed: June 30, 2015

Unpublished

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

KATYA SIDO, *

*

Petitioner, * Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

* Influenza (“flu”) vaccine; Shoulder Injury

v. * Related to Vaccine Administration

* (“SIRVA”); Special Processing Unit

* (“SPU”)

SECRETARY OF HEALTH *

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

*

Respondent. *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Amber D. Wilson, Maglio Christopher and Toale, PA, Washington, DC, for petitioner.

Justine E. Walter, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

Vowell, Chief Special Master:

On April 16, 2015, Katya Sido filed a petition for compensation under the 

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq,

2 [the 

“Vaccine Act” or “Program”]. The petition alleges that as a result of an influenza (“flu”) 

vaccination on November 1, 2013, petitioner suffered a shoulder injury related to 

vaccine administration (“SIRVA”). Petition at ¶¶2, 14-15. The case was assigned to the 

Special Processing Unit (“SPU”) of the Office of Special Masters.

On June 29, 2015, respondent filed her Rule 4(c) Report [“Res. Report”], in which 

she concedes that petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Resp. Report at 4. 

Specifically, respondent has “concluded that a preponderance of the evidence 

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, it will be 

posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance with the E-Government Act 

of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, § 205, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 

note (2006)). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to 

redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of 

privacy. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such 

material from public access.

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for 

ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 

300aa (2006).

 
establishes that petitioner’s injury is consistent with a [SIRVA], and that [the] injury is not 

due to factors unrelated to her November 1, 2013, flu vaccination. Id. Respondent 

stated that “”in light of the information contained in petitioner’s medical records, 

respondent has concluded that petitioner’s right shoulder injury is compensable as a 

‘caused-in-fact’ injury under the Vaccine Act.” Id.

In view of respondent’s concession and the evidence before me, I find that 

petitioner is entitled to compensation.

s/Denise K. Vowell

Denise K. Vowell

Chief Special Master

2
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Cleartronic, Inc. (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2010 of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  Date: February 14, 2011/s/ Larry ReidByLarry ReidPrincipal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer
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 Agriculture

###### Forest Service

# AGENCY:

Forest Service, USDA.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

The Lake Tahoe Basin Federal Advisory Committee will hold a meeting tentatively on July 15, 2009 at the Sierra Nevada College, 999 Tahoe Boulevard, Incline Village, NV 89451. This Committee, established by the Secretary of Agriculture on December 15, 1998 (64 FR 2876), is chartered to provide advice to the Secretary on implementing the terms of the Federal Interagency Partnership on the Lake Tahoe Region and other matters raised by the Secretary.

# DATES:

The meeting will be held July 15, 2009, beginning at 9 a.m. and ending at 12 p.m.

# ADDRESSES:

The meeting will be held at Sierra Nevada College, 999 Tahoe Boulevard, Incline Village, NV 89451.

                        For Further Information or to Request an Accommodation (one week prior to meeting date) Contact: Linda Lind, Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, Forest                               ( print page 31404)                            Service, 35 College Drive, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150, (530) 543-2787.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Items to be covered on the agenda include: (1) Lake Tahoe Southern Nevada Public Land Act (SNPLMA) Round 10 update; (2) Status and preparation for SNPLMA Round 11; and, (3) Public Comment. All Lake Tahoe Basin Federal Advisory Committee meetings are open to the public. Interested citizens are encouraged to attend at the above address. Issues may be brought to the attention of the Committee during the open public comment period at the meeting or by filing written statements with the secretary for the Committee before or after the meeting. Please refer any written comments to the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit at the contact address stated above.

Dated: June 23, 2009.

Cheva Heck,

Acting Forest Supervisor.

[FR Doc. E9-15393 Filed 6-30-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
#### In the Matter of Farid U. Khan, Appellant, v Asiyah Khan, Respondent.

[976 NYS2d 671]

In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Burke, Ct. Atty. Ref.), dated November 28, 2012, which, after a hearing, inter alia, in effect, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

“The determination of whether a family offense was committed is a factual issue to be resolved by the Family Court, and *830that court’s determination regarding the credibility of witnesses is entitled to great weight on appeal, and will not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record” *(Matter of Alam v Alam,*108 AD3d 665, 666 [2013]; *see Matter of Salazar v Melendez,*97 AD3d 754, 755 [2012]). Here, the Family Court’s determination that no family offense had been committed hinged on issues of credibility, and we find no basis to disturb it *(see Matter of Kurkcu v Cokyuksel,*31 AD3d 554 [2006]).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. Dickerson, J.E, Hall, Cohen and Miller, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Martin Heidgen, Appellant. The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Franklin McPherson, Appellant. The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Taliyah Taylor, Appellant.

Submitted September 9, 2013;

decided September 12, 2013

Motion by District Attorneys Association of the State of New York for leave to appear amicus curiae on the appeals herein granted only to the extent that the proposed brief is accepted as filed. Two copies of the brief must be served and nine copies filed within seven days.
IV 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 479 

Seeking the return of the USS Pueblo to the United States Navy. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 9, 2019 

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

Committee on Foreign Affairs 

RESOLUTION 

Seeking the return of the USS Pueblo to the United States 

Navy. 

Whereas the USS Pueblo, which was attacked and captured 

by the navy of North Korea on January 23, 1968, was 

the first ship of the United States Navy to be hijacked 

on the high seas by a foreign military force in more than 

150 years; 

Whereas 1 member of the USS Pueblo crew, Petty Officer 

Duane Hodges, was killed in the assault, while the other 

82 crew members were held in captivity, often under inhumane conditions, for 11 months; 

Whereas the USS Pueblo, an intelligence collection auxiliary 

vessel, was operating in international waters at the time 

of the capture, and therefore did not violate the territorial waters of North Korea; 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 479 IH 

Whereas the capture of the USS Pueblo resulted in no reprisals against the Government or people of North Korea and 

no military action at any time; and 

Whereas the USS Pueblo, though still the property of the 

United States Navy, has been retained by the Government of North Korea for more than 50 years, was subjected to exhibition in the North Korean cities of Wonsan 

and Hungham, and is now on display in Pyongyang, the 

capital city of North Korea: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) desires the return of the USS Pueblo to the 

3 United States Navy; 

4 (2) would welcome the return of the USS Pueb5 lo as a sign of good faith from the North Korean 

6 people to the American people; and 

7 (3) directs the Clerk of the House of Represent8 atives to transmit copies of this resolution to the 

9 President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Sec10 retary of State. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Richard L. Markee, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Form 10-Q of VS Holdings, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the
registrant and we have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures
to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report
is being prepared;

b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial
reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles;

c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this
report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

4. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants
ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that
involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.

Date:
September 30, 2009



|    |  |                                     
|--- |  | ------------------------------------
|    | 
|By: |  | /s/ Richard L. Markee               
|    |  | Richard L. Markee                   
|    |  | Chief Executive Officer and Chairman
# table114_q13.3_size
#### In the Matter of Estate of Mooshi R. Namordi, Deceased. Nicole Namordi, Appellant; Clifford Forstadt, Esq., Executor of Mooshi R. Namordí, Deceased, Respondent.

[976 NYS2d 917]

Appeal from a decree (denominated order) of the Surrogate’s Court, Onondaga County (Ava S. Raphael, S.), entered May 15, 2012. The decree dismissed the petition seeking, inter alia, vacatur of a decree of probate.

It is hereby ordered that the decree so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Mooshi R. Namordi died on February 11, 2009, leaving a will in which he created residuary trusts for the benefit of his daughter (petitioner) and her son, and devised real property to petitioner’s former husband. Petitioner signed a waiver of process and consent to probate on March 3, 2009, and the will was subsequently admitted to probate on April 3, 2009. On April 5, 2012, petitioner sought vacatur of the decree of probate on the ground of “newly-discovered evidence,” and Surrogate’s Court dismissed the petition without a hearing. We affirm. We reject petitioner’s contention that the Surrogate erred in dismissing the petition. Although a party seeking to set aside a decree of probate entered upon that party’s waiver of process and consent to probate may indeed submit newly-discovered evidence as a ground for justifying the reopening of the decree *1362
      *(see Matter of Leeper,*53 AD2d 1054, 1055 [1976], *appeal dismissed*42 NY2d 910 [1977]), here petitioner failed to do so. In light of our determination, we conclude that petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. Present — Centra, J.P., Peradotto, Garni, Sconiers and Whalen, JJ.
#### Polaris Commerce Center, L.L.C., Appellant, *v.*Delaware County Board of Revision et al., Appellees.

[Cite as *Polaris Commerce Ctr., L.L.C. v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Revision,*111 Ohio St.3d 1214, 2006-Ohio-5606.]

(No. 2006-0035

Submitted August 9, 2006

Decided November 1, 2006.)

{¶ 1} The appeal is dismissed, sua sponte, on the authority of *Olympic Steel, Inc. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision,*110 Ohio St.3d 1242, 2006-Ohio-4091, 852 N.E.2d 178. Motion to dismiss of appellee Board of Education of the Olentangy Local School District is denied as moot.

*1215Wayne E. Petkovic, for appellant.

Rich, Crites & Dittmer, L.L.C., and Mark H. Gillis, for appellee Board of Education of the Olentangy Local School District.

Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ., concur.

Pfeifer, J.,

dissents for the reason stated in his dissent in *Olympic Steel, Inc. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision,*110 Ohio St.3d 1242, 2006-Ohio-4091, 852 N.E.2d 178, ¶ 5.