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 2002

In connection with this Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q of Susser Holdings Corporation (the Company) for the three months ended April 3, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Sam L. Susser, President
and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                   |  |  |  |                                                    
|------------------ |  |  |  | ---------------------------------------------------
|Date: May 13, 2011 |  |  |  |                                                    
|                   |  |  |  | /s/ Sam L. Susser                                  
|                   |  |  |  | Sam L. Susser President and
Chief Executive Officer

This certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-Q pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
Appeal Ate, c>Q-)6-nr>J4S- cR'

TToMamt/Ma/ CnoVBH -X A&PMUA/i/r

MS. ^C

T#£ S7A7£ Q? 7£X*S -£• S/Sf*-

tt#ST MOJTdA/ J=nR BXTFASSjlnA/ nTy-Jr^r - PP>>?

To 47)P /h^nrnklP To/tr-l nrP Cr',/i»irx> / .dffff?*' r

f\Jn/AJ rrtater pm-.re> /ttt>e//r.s>-l- rfoWinrvJ-Vvan Coo-per- nnA -AJ^c n*cA-lQY\-~fo<-

P/W Onn n-P 4<^f -fer &Q c^y.r -/o ^/T^ff ftifflj ~f'~/<" r, ^^1^ftgfe

r>T cm'.A rp^t;gx4- /i>oul^ .cW^i -l-Vrf Cg(7/4 a.t -boJJoukt *

JUL -2-l-2Si5

jr. Abel-AcGSta, Ulerk

77i:r :c a<j>pp)ln^\x -ftr.r4- />?c4:nyl -for P*4t»j0_c m/1 oV~+j/>?f. 7)4<° Cpur]- n-PApf>&*lr

4or -<^ro<^ A;.c4r'ir4-rt-C For4 ^or4Vi, 7*r*G r jr.r^r) ;4.r /fJethQcnnnUfli QfLQjvy}..**)

"\oA° lHjcQoiS a-nb n* re-Wsrlnft /^nc r^gc^rjg^, A^e)/an-l- Tc ^ro-.v <° an^ nee^-r <°y4na

4,ryie 4^ ly.rearA cm> -fi)p 4WW:l -fer PDR,

<?v4pyi^/i :«m* nTr>T 4:,^rn 4d -Tr)gite r, 90frPft£ ,

RECEIVED IN ^-^^hfMly-S^^ '.-Hg'i

CUUKr OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

JUL 15 2015

AhriAcoBteiuerK" /40?/ /^ 3S£ff

Anient. ry ?9<&a/

hrAe.'. 3u\ylF\$C>)5
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 123 (Monday, June 29, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 31052]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-15298]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-65,845]


Broyhill Furniture, Inc., Broyhill Rutherford Distribution 
Center, Rutherfordton, NC; Notice of Termination of Investigation

    In accordance with Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as 
amended, an investigation was initiated on April 24, 2009 in response 
to a petition filed on behalf of workers of Broyhill Furniture, Inc., 
Broyhill Rutherfordton Distribution Center, Rutherfordton, North 
Carolina.
    The petitioners have requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed in Washington, DC, this 20th day of May 2009.
Richard Church,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-15298 Filed 6-26-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
Exhibit 99.1

CERTIFICATIONS

In connection with the Annual Report of Sharper Image Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-K for the period ended
January 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Richard Thalheimer, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. section 1350), that to my knowledge:



|By: | /s/RICHARD THALHEIMERRichard Thalheimer
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer | 
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 

April 28,
2003

---

QuickLinks
S04A1358.

#### KEMP v. SIMPSON.

(603 SE2d 267)

SEARS, Presiding Justice.

In this habeas action, the habeas court granted relief to the appellee, Karriem Simpson, from his plea of guilty to the offense of incest. The warden, appellant Ralph Kemp, appeals from the habeas court’s order, and for the reasons that follow, we reverse.

Simpson was indicted for rape and incest. The incest count of the indictment alleged that Simpson was the victim’s uncle.1 As part of a plea bargain, the charge of rape against Simpson was nol prossed, and Simpson pled guilty to incest. Simpson subsequently filed this habeas petition, contending that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel and that, as he was the victim’s step-uncle, not her uncle, his sexual relationship with her was not prohibited by the incest statute. Reasoning that the indictment against Simpson failed to charge a crime since the incest statute does not proscribe intercourse between a step-uncle and step-niece, the habeas court ruled that Simpson’s plea to incest was void.2 We disagree with this ruling.

When Simpson pled guilty to incest, he waived all defenses *440except that the indictment charged no crime.3 In this regard, if a defendant can admit all the allegations contained in the indictment and still not be guilty of a crime, then the indictment has failed to sufficiently allege that the defendant committed a crime and the resulting plea is void.4 Here, the indictment alleged that Simpson was the victim’s uncle and that he had sexual intercourse with her. When Simpson pled guilty, he admitted these facts, and because these facts constitute the crime of incest, Simpson’s plea to that crime is not void. Accordingly, we reverse the habeas court’s ruling to the contrary.

Decided September 27, 2004.

*Thurbert E. Baker, Attorney General, Jason C. Fisher, Assistant Attorney General,*for appellant.

Karriem Simpson, *pro se.*

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur.*

1

 In this regard, OCGA § 16-6-22 (a) (6) provides that “[a] person commits the offense of incest when he engages in sexual intercourse with a person to whom he knows he is related either by blood or by marriage as follows:... (6) Uncle and niece.”

2

 The habeas court did not rule on Simpson’s ineffectiveness claim.

3

 See *Wilson v. Reed,*246 Ga. 743 (272 SE2d 699) (1980); *Howard v. State,*252 Ga. App. 487 (555 SE2d 884) (2001).

4

*Wilson,*246 Ga. at 743; *Smith v. Hardrick,*266 Ga. 54, 55 (464 SE2d 198) (1995).
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-15-00194-CR

Stanley Dale Self

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From the 367th District Court

of Denton County (F-90-572-E)

July 23, 2015

Opinion by Justice Sudderth

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

the appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed for 

want of jurisdiction.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By _/s/ Bonnie Sudderth________________

 Justice Bonnie Sudderth
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                           205,214
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                       1,526
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                 242,116
<CASH>                                          35,376
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                               3,927
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                           5,879
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 416,569
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                201,255
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                             12,913
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                     30
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          101,277
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        34,301
<OTHER-SE>                                      25,517
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   416,569
<PREMIUMS>                                     140,920
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                             12,674
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                                  44
<OTHER-INCOME>                                       0
<BENEFITS>                                      90,447
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                     19,977
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                            17,718
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 17,261
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,437
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             10,824
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               (12,896)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,141)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.98)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.00)
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                 195,131
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                             95,826
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                              (5,379)
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                              37,945
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                95,533
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                152,100
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                        (5,379)
<FN>
<F1>Reserves for unpaid claims, provision for insured events, and payments of claims
are stated net of reinsurance.  Reserves for unpaid claims - beginning of year
include Pac Rim reserves at acquisition.
</FN>


</TABLE>
#### CREDEN et al. v. CENTRAL R. CO. OF NEW JERSEY.

No. 653.

District Court, E. D. New York.

Jan. 24, 1940.

Richard M. Cantor, of New York City, for plaintiffs.

Charles E. Miller, of New York City, for defendant.

MOSCOWITZ, District Judge.

This is a motion by the defendant, in a personal injury action, to vacate or modi*169fy interrogatories propounded to the defendant by the plaintiffs under Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c.

Interrogatories 1, 2 and 3 deal with the time of the report to the defendant of the accident and by whom and to whom made. As such they deal with important background which may bear upon, among other things, the bona fides of plaintiffs’ claim. They are relevant and are allowed.

Interrogatories 4, 5 and 7 seek to ascertain the names of eyewitnesses to the accident and are allowed as clearly relevant. Interrogatory 6 inquires as to the names of defendant’s employees who were present but who did not see the accident. This is relevant to the question of possible negligence of defendant’s employees in failing to observe and assist passengers alighting from trains, if their duties so required them. It is allowed.

Interrogatory 8 asks for the substance of statements made by witnesses and employees of the defendant to the defendant. In absence of any showing why plaintiffs cannot secure this information from the witnesses themselves by deposition or otherwise, there is . no reason to permit plaintiffs to avail themselves of defendant’s preparation of its case. See McCarthy v. Palmer, D.C., 29 F.Supp. 585, 586. The interrogatory is disallowed.

Interrogatories 9, 10, 11 and 12 are also disallowed for the reasons given in Olson v. New York Central Railroad Company, D.C., 31 F.Supp. 745, January 15, 1940. Interrogatory 33 falls within the same general category. Interrogatory 13, which seeks the name of the person who took the statement from plaintiffs, is allowed as possibly affording information not within plaintiffs’ knowledge which will be important to them if plaintiffs’ statements to defendant are used to impeach them as witnesses.

Interrogatories 27, 28 and 29 dealing with similar equipment and accidents are clearly relevant. They are allowed.

No objection is raised to any of the other interrogatories and they, too, are allowed.

Settle order on notice,
# table198_q20_size
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Amendment
No. 1 to Quarterly Report of Proteon Therapeutics, Inc. (the “Corporation”) on Form 10-Q/A for the fiscal quarter
ended June 30, 2016, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Timothy
P. Noyes, as President and Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation, and I, George A. Eldridge, Senior Vice President, Chief
Financial Officer, Treasurer and Assistant Secretary of the Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



|(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 Corporation.
|--- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





|Date: August 8, 2016 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Timothy P. Noyes                                                             
|-------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                     |  |  |  |     |  | Timothy P. Noyes                                                                 
|                     |  |  |  |     |  | President, Chief Executive Officer and Director                                  
|                     |  |  |  |     |  | (Principal Executive Officer)                                                    
|                     |  |  | 
|Date: August 8, 2016 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ George A. Eldridge                                                           
|                     |  |  |  |     |  | George A. Eldridge                                                               
|                     |  |  |  |     |  | Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Assistant Secretary
|                     |  |  |  |     |  | (Principal Financial Officer)                                                    



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.
ACCEPTED

12-14-00271-CR

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

TYLER, TEXAS

7/27/2015 8:23:32 AM

CATHY LUSK

CLERK

 FILED IN 12th COURT OF APPEALS TYLER, TEXAS 7/27/2015 8:23:32 AM CATHY S. LUSK Clerk
C.J.

Saitta with which he may pursue his claim. See NRS 34.170. Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED. 

# P I 

### &SA dAP J. Pickering cc: Hon. Michelle Leavitt, District Judge Eric T. Douglas Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

2
Labor Employer Reporting Instructions

Part VIII - Employer Reporting System (ERS) Internet User Instructions 

Chapter 8: Summary Report of Compensation Reported Using the Internet

1

Access Employer Reports

To access available reports, click "Reports" on the left-side menu. Currently, the only report 

available is "BA-4 Summary." Click the report title. 

BA-4 Summary Report

First select the processing year for which you want a report. Then select the report detail. If you 

choose quarterly (all) or monthly (all) you will receive all the activity for the year summarized by 

quarter or month. The remainder of the menu choices will list the activity only for an individual 

quarter or month. The BA-4 Summary Report provides the number of individual activity records 

and the net RUIA, Tier I, and Tier II compensation processed on this system during the period 

selected. If you adjust service months only, this will count as an activity record. The monthly or 

quarterly amounts are summarized in yearly totals at the end of the report. Negative amounts 

appear with a negative sign.

Explanation of RRB Processing Date

Data for reports is accumulated by the RRB processing date. In general, this is the next processing 

day following the date the BA-4 was approved on the system. Reports approved on a Friday are 

usually processed to RRB accounts on Saturday. However, if the end of the month is Friday and 

the situation is not clear from your report, you can telephone QRSC to determine the processing 

date. In some situations, weekend processing may occur before midnight on Friday or as late as 

Sunday. 

BA-11 Summary Report

To access the BA-11 Summary Report, select the BA-11 link under Completed on the left-side 

menu. Select the reporting year and click on “Submit” then click on the “Summary Report” button.
EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Bernard J. Tanenbaum III, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this
Quarterly Report on Form 10Q of Middle Kingdom Alliance Corp. for the three month period ending June 30, 2007.

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. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all
material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.
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)) 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 is made known to us by others within that entity, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) 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

(c) 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 that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting;

5. 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 functions):

(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: August 10, 2007



|                             |  |                         
|---------------------------- |  | ------------------------
|/s/ Bernard J. Tanenbaum III
|Name:                        |  | Bernard J. Tanenbaum III
|Title:                       |  | Chief Executive Officer
----

** Exhibit 31.1**

**  CERTIFICATIONS**

I, Ronald A. Durando, certify that:

1.  

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of mPhase Technologies,Inc.;

2. 

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

3. 

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4. 

The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant's and have:

a. 

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

b. 

Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and

c. 

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

5. 

The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors(or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a. 

All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

b. 

Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financialreporting.

/s/ Ronald A. Durando                    

Ronald A. DurandoChief Executive Officer

November 14, 2007

 

----