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

I, Anthony S. Shalom, Chief Executive Officer of Intcomex, Inc. (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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 (the Report), filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 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: July 29, 2009



/s/ Anthony S. ShalomAnthony S. ShalomChief Executive Officer(Chairman of the Board of Directors)


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely 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) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.

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 U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Vanessa Robinson, Appellant.

[821 NYS2d 923]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Gazzillo, J.), rendered April 21, 2005, convicting her of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon her plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see Anders v California,*386 US 738 [1967]; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631 [1976]; *cf. People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606 [1979]). Florio, J.P, Crane, Luciano, Spolzino and Covello, JJ., concur.
96-2719.

#### State ex rel. Brantley v. Eighth Judicial Court of Appeals.

In Mandamus. *Sua, sponte,*cause dismissed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>
                                                                     EXHIBIT 4.8

                              CERTIFICATE OF TRUST

                                       OF

                           REGIONS FINANCING TRUST III

         This Certificate of Trust of Regions Financing Trust III (the "Trust"),
dated November 20, 2001, is being duly executed and filed by the undersigned, as
trustees, to form a business trust under the Delaware Business Trust Act (12
Del. C.ss.3801, et seq.) (the "Act").

         1.       Name. The name of the business trust being formed hereby is
Regions Financing Trust III.

         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 is
Bankers Trust (Delaware), a Delaware banking corporation, Montgomery Building,
1011 Centre Road, Suite 200, Wilmington, Delaware 19805.

         3.       Effective Date. This Certificate of Trust shall be effective
upon 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 FOLLOWS]

<PAGE>

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, being the trustees of the Trust,
have executed this Certificate of Trust in accordance with Section 3811(a)(1) of
the Act.



                             BANKERS TRUST COMPANY, a New York
                             banking corporation, not in its individual capacity
                             but solely as trustee



                             By: /s/ Tracy Salzman
                                ------------------------------------------------
                                Name: Tracy Salzman
                                Title: Associate



                             BANKERS TRUST (DELAWARE), a Delaware
                             banking corporation, not in its individual capacity
                             but solely as trustee



                             By: /s/ Elizabeth B. Ferry
                                ------------------------------------------------
                                Name: Elizabeth B. Ferry
                                Title: Assistant Vice President
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">The People of the State of New York, Respondent,<br><br>against<br><br>Donee Smith, Defendant-Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Neil E. Ross, J.), rendered February 25, 2013, after a jury trial, convicting her of attempted assault in the third degree, and imposing sentence.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Judgment of conviction (Neil E. Ross, J.), rendered February 25, 2013, affirmed.</p><p>Defendant's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting her conviction for attempted assault in the third degree is unpreserved for appellate review, as her motion to dismiss was not specifically directed at the deficiency now raised on appeal (<i>see People v Gray</i>, 86 NY2d 10, 19 [2014]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we reject it on the merits. We also find that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (<i>see People v Danielson</i>, 9 NY3d 342, 348—349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury's credibility determinations. The evidence amply supported the inference that when defendant punched the complainant in the back of her head, defendant did so with intent to cause physical injury (<i>see </i>Penal Law 120.00[1]; <a href="../2009/2009_02825.htm" target="_blank"><i>Matter of Edward H., </i>61 AD3d 473</a>, 473 [2009]; <i>Matter of Keene J.</i>, 253 AD2d 679 [1998]; <i>Matter of Marcel F</i>., 233 AD2d 442 [1996].</p><p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p><br>I concur I concur I concur<br>Decision Date: April 17, 2017<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Daniel J. Boyden, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 1.)

[977 NYS2d 538]

Appeal from a judgment of the Cayuga County Court (Thomas G. Leone, J.), rendered March 20, 2012. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of assault in the second degree (two counts) and obstructing governmental administration in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: In appeal No. 1, defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of, inter alia, two counts of assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05 [3]) in connection with an altercation with deputies at the Cayuga County Jail and, in appeal No. 2, he appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of, inter alia, robbery in the first degree (§ 160.15 [3]) in connection with his robbery of a convenience store. Defendant pleaded guilty to all counts of the two indictments in exchange for a sentence promise of concurrent determinate terms of imprisonment, to be followed by a period of postrelease supervision. By failing to move to withdraw his plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction in each appeal, defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention in each appeal that his plea of guilty was not voluntarily entered *(see People v Toxey,*86 NY2d 725, 726 [1995], *1373
      *rearg denied*86 NY2d 839 [1995]; *People v Theall,*109 AD3d 1107, 1107 [2013]). In any event, defendant’s contention is belied by the record of the plea proceeding in each appeal *(see People v Weakfall,*108 AD3d 1115, 1115 [2013], *lv denied 21*NY3d 1078 [2013]). The bargained-for sentence is not unduly harsh and severe. Present — Scudder, P.J., Fahey, Peradotto, Garni and Valentino, JJ.
#### UNITED STATES v. EAST.

Cr. No. 1554.

District Court, N. D. Indiana, South Bend Division.

June 3, 1946.

*390James E. Keating, Asst. U. S. Atty., of South Bend, Ind., for United States.

No attorney for defendant.

SWYGERT, District Judge.

This defendant is charged with violating the National Motor Vehicle Theft Act, 18 U.S.C.A. § 408, in that he knowingly transported a stolen automobile from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to Columbus, Ohio. He was apprehended in the Northern District of Indiana. Thereafter he indicated to that district’s United States Attorney that he wanted to plead guilty and asked to have his case disposed of under Rule 20 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure.

An information was filed in the district court in Philadelphia and transmitted to this court. Before arraignment, the defendant in open court waived his right to be prosecuted by indictment. He then pleaded guilty to the information.

The question is, may an information be filed in Philadelphia before the defendant waives his right, in this court, to be prosecuted by indictment. This requires a construction of Rule 7 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure in a prosecution conducted under Rule 20. Rule 7 (a) provides in part: “An offense which may be punished by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year or at hard labor shall be prosecuted by indictment or, if indictment is waived, it may be prosecuted by information.” Rule 7(b) reads: “An offense which may .be punished by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year or at hard labor may be prosecuted by information if the defendant, after he has been advised of the nature of the charge and his rights, waives in open court prosecution by indictment.”

The last sentence of Rule 7(a) reads: “An information may be filed without leave of court,” this, taken together with Rule 20, indicates it was intended that an information may be filed before the defendant waives in open court his right to be prosecuted by indictment. Of course, he cannot be required to plead or be tried until he has made such waiver. Any other construction will wholly defeat the purpose of Rule 20 when prosecutions are presented by information; for instance in this case,, unless East may waive in this court his right to be prosecuted by indictment after the information has been filed in the district court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, it will be necessary for him to be taken to .Philadelphia for that purpose. If that is required, there will be no reason to proceed further under Rule 20 and have him returned to this district for sentence.

I am of the opinion that the information may be filed where the prosecution is started and that waiver of indictment may proceed after that in the district where disposition is to be made.
@article{1216096,
  author = {Thinh Bui and Mark-Alexander Henn and Weston L. Tew and Megan Catterton and Solomon I. Woods},
  title = {Harmonic dependence of thermal magnetic particle imaging},
  year = {2023},
  month = {2023-09-22 04:09:00},
  publisher = {Nature - Scientific Reports},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=936208},
  doi = {https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-42620-1},
  language = {en},
}
m NSt =ME MES011ta genuine issue of material fact remains in dispute and that the moving

party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 

### Id. To withstand summary judgment, the nonmoving party cannot rely solely on general allegations and conclusions set forth in the pleadings, but must instead present specific facts demonstrating the existence of a genuine factual issue supporting her claims. NRCP 56(e); 

### see also Wood, 121 Nev. at 731, 121 P.3d at 1030-31.

Having reviewed appellant's proper person appeal statement and the record on appeal, we conclude that the district court properly awarded summary judgment in favor of respondent. Appellant failed to present any specific facts or evidence demonstrating the existence of a genuine issue of material fact supporting her claims against respondent. 

### Id. Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.



## L.P-tuk- A Hardesty

Parraguirre

cc: Hon. Jessie Elizabeth Walsh, District Judge George T. Bochanis, Short Trial Judge Judith Scrase Valarie I. Fujii & Associates Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A 2
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 the report of Asia Time Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q
      for the period ending June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, in the capacities
      and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, that to his 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 Company.


/s/
                Kwong Kai ShunKwong
                Kai ShunChief
                  Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Chairman of the
                  Board
                (Principal
                  Executive Officer; Principal Financial and Accounting
                  Officer)August
              20, 2007




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
      provided to Asia Time Corporation and will be retained by Asia Time Corporation
      and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.
Appeal reinstated and order entered October 13 , 2021

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 21

- 00427

- CV

____________ IN THE INTEREST OF C.U.D., S.L.D., A/K/A S.D., J.P.J.D., K.K.J.D., AND A.E.D., II, CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 30 8th District Co urt

H arri s County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2018

- 37155

ORDER
This is an appeal from a judgment terminating the par ental rights of appellant, R.J

. On October 5, 2021, this court abated the appeal and directed the
trial court to cla rif

y whether appellant desired to prosecute this appeal and was entitled to appointed counsel for it, as well as to appoint appell ate counsel for appellant if necessary

. The trial court subsequently noted Angela Ellis has been appoi nted counsel for appellant . Accordingly, thi s court reinstates this appeal and directs appellant to file her brief in this appeal by No vember 2, 2021

. P ER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Chief Justice Christop h er and Justices Hassan and Po i ssant

.
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**




**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 63 OF**


**TITLE
      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 Kingston Systems Inc. (the "Company")
      on
      Form 10-K for the period ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, George J. Coupe,
      Chief
      Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant
      to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 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.




**KINGSTON
      SYSTEMS INC.**





By:
            /s/
                George J. CoupeGeorge
                J. CoupeChief
                Financial OfficerJuly
                15, 2008





The
      foregoing certification is being furnished solely 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) and is not being filed as part of the Annual
      Report on Form 10-K or as a separate disclosure document.





A
      signed
      original of this written statement, required by Section 906, has been provided
      to Kingston Systems, Inc. and will be retained by Kingston Systems, Inc. and
      furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                              81
<SECURITIES>                                        61
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,954
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (35)
<INVENTORY>                                        854
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 3,030
<PP&E>                                           4,362
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,702)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   8,317
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,375
<BONDS>                                            962
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,341
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     8,317
<SALES>                                          7,395
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,395
<CGS>                                            5,702
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,109
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    22
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 107
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    698
<INCOME-TAX>                                       181
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                310
<DISCONTINUED>                                    (49)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       261
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in
post-effective Amendment No. 1 to the Registration Statement No. 33-7053 on Form S-8, and in Registration Statement Nos. 33-44700, 333-44024 and 333-46218 on Form S-8 of our report dated January 14, 2008, with respect to the consolidated
financial statements of Archon Corporation in its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2007.



|                                |  | 
|------------------------------- |  | 
|/s/ Piercy Bowler Taylor & Kern |  | 
|                                | 
|Las Vegas, Nevada               |  | 
|January 14, 2008                |  |
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Certification**

**Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002**

**(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)**

 

Pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) ofSection 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of theundersigned officers of Osiris Therapeutics, Inc. (the “Company”), doeshereby certify, to the best of each officer’s knowledge that:

 

The Quarterly Report onForm 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010 (the “Form 10-Q”)of the Company fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,and the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 
| Date: November 5,  2010 | /s/ C. RANDAL MILLS                           |
|------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------|
|                         | C. Randal Mills, Ph.D.                        |
|                         | President & Chief  Executive Officer |
|                         |                                          |
| Date: November 5,  2010 | /s/ PHILIP R. JACOBY, JR.                     |
|                         | Philip R. Jacoby, Jr.                    |
|                         | Chief Financial Officer                       |

 

This certification “accompanies”the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the UnitedStates Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated byreference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, asamended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether madebefore or after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any generalincorporation language contained in such filing.

 

----
Exhibit 32.2

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 Affinion Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended September 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-Q), I, Robert G. Rooney, Interim Chief Financial 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 to the best of my knowledge:

(i) the Form
10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(ii) the
information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

Dated:
November 13, 2006.



|                                                            
|------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                            
|/s/ Robert G. Rooney                                        
|Robert G. Rooney                                            
|Executive Vice President and Interim Chief Financial Officer