alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT
32.1





CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE AND 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 Quarterly Report of California Gold Corp. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-Q for the period ended October 31, 2010,as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), I, James D. Davidson, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted
pursuant to ss.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 result of operations of the Company.





IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of December
16, 2010.





/s/ James D. DavidsonJames
      D. DavidsonChief
      Executive Officer andChief
      Financial Officer





A signed
original of this written statement, or other document authenticating,
acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form
within the electronic version of this written statement, has been provided to
California Gold Corp., and will be retained by California Gold Corp., and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
Motion for Rehearing Granted, Memorandum Opinion filed February 23, 2012, 

Withdrawn, Appeal Reinstated and Order filed July 19, 2012. 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-11-01002-CV

____________

CHRISTINE E. REULE, Appellant

V.

RLZ INVESTMENTS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Co Civil Ct at Law No 4

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1001350

ORDER

On February 23, 2012, this court issued an opinion dismissing this appeal. 

Appellant filed a motion for rehearing. The motion is GRANTED. 

This court’s opinion filed February 23, 2012, is WITHDRAWN, and our 

judgment of that date is VACATED. The appeal is ordered REINSTATED. 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Frost, Brown and Christopher.
#### NATIONAL TRANSFORMER CORPORATION et al. v. FRANCE MFG. CO.

Civ. No. 24548.

United States District Court N. D. Ohio, E. D.

Nov. 3, 1949.

F. O. Richey, Cleveland, Ohio, Samuel E. Darby, Jr., New York City, for plaintiff.

Bates, Teare & McBean, Cleveland, Ohio (Spl.Appr.), Albert R. Teare, Cleveland, Ohio-, for defendant.

JONES, Chief Judge.

This is an action for specific performance of a license agreement, for a declaratory *607judgment as to whether said license has been cancelled and for infringement of certain patents if the license has been cancelled.

Defendant has served interrogatories and supplemental interrogatories on plaintiffs. Plaintiffs object to Interrogatory No. 9 and defendant has filed a brief in opposition to plaintiffs’ objection. Defendant also has moved that plaintiffs be required to answer supplemental Interrogatory No. 5 as propounded.

Plaintiffs’ objection to Interrogatory No. 9 is based on privilege and lack of relevancy. Rule 15 of the Rules of Practice, 35 U.S.C.A., Appendix, provides that patent applications shall be kept in secret unless authority to disclose is given by the person who filed the application. However, the Rules of Discovery are to be interpreted liberally so that evidence may be made available to all the parties in the action. This interpretation results in a holding that patent applications are not privileged material when they are connected with pending litigation. Support for this position may be found in Walker on Patents, Deller’s Edition, pages *825-27*and cases cited therein.

It is sufficient to say that the material sought is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and therefore the objection of lack of relevancy is unfounded.

1. Plaintiffs’ objection will be overruled.

In supplementary Interrogatory No. 5 defendant asked how, if at all, the purchaser of a transformer unit from a licensee obtained the right to use the system of patents in suit. Plaintiffs answered that no such license had ever been given and no purchaser has ever requested one. Defendant moves that No. 5 be answered as propounded. Plaintiff contends that No. 5 calls for an interpretation of a contract and for legal conclusions.

Objections of the sort that plaintiffs now make should be filed within ten days of the serving of the interrogatories. Plaintiffs have chosen to answer Interrogatory No. 5 and have waived any right they had to object. The only defense that plaintiffs now have is that they have given a sufficient answer to No. 5. Plaintiffs’ answer to No. 5 is evasive and plaintiffs will be required to state whether the right to use the patented system is given to a purchaser and, if it is, how it is given.

2. Defendant’s motion will be sustained.
# table14_q3.3_state
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, July 10, 2015.

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.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, July 10, 2015

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A15D0458. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY HEALTH v.

CARTERSVILLE MEDICAL CENTER, INC. et al. .

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be

hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this

order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record

transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

LC NUMBERS:

2014CV252687
#### Neith Newberger et al., Appellants, v Bobbi Hirsch, Respondent, et al., Defendant.

[853 NYS2d 635]

The plaintiff Neith Newberger was operating a minivan in which her four minor children were passengers, when it was struck by a second motor vehicle, which allegedly was backing out of a driveway and onto the roadway of the Horace Harding Expressway in Queens. After the plaintiffs commenced the present action, the defendant Bobbi Hirsch moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that none of the plaintiffs sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

The medical evidence which the movant submitted in support of her motion failed to establish, prima facie, that Neith Newberger did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) *(see Tchjevskaia v Chase,*15 AD3d 389 [2005]). Notably, the affirmed medical report prepared by the movant’s orthopedic expert raised a triable issue of fact *(see*CPLR 3212 [b]) as to whether Neith Newberger sustained a “significant limitation of use of a body function or system” (Insurance Law § 5102 [d]). Under these circumstances, it is unnecessary to consider the sufficiency of the opposition papers *701submitted by Neith Newberger *(see Tchjevskaia v Chase,*15 AD3d at 389).

However, the medical evidence which the movant submitted in support of her motion as it related to the other plaintiffs established, prima facie, that none of those plaintiffs sustained a serious injury within the statutory definition *(see Gaddy v Eyler,*79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]). In opposition, those plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Lifson, J.P., Ritter, Florio and Garni, JJ., concur.
TDCJ Offender Details Page 1 of2 

New Offender Search 

Offender Information Details 

Return to Search list 

SID Number: 

TDCJ Number: 

Name: 

Race: 

Gender: 

DOB: 

Maximum Sentence Date: 

Current Facility: 

Projected Release Date: 

Parole Eligibility Date: 

Offender Visitation Eligible: 

02868435 

01477843 

BUGGS, STEPHEN 

B 

M 

1964-05-01 

2081-03~07 

COFFIELD 

2066-03-08 

2036-03-07 

YES 

Information provided is updated once daily during weekdays and multiple times per day 

on visitation days. Because this information is subject to change, family members and 

friends are encouraged to call the unit prior to traveling for a visit. 

SPECIAL INFORMATION FOR SCHEDULED RELEASE: 

Scheduled Release Date: Offender is not scheduled for release at this time. 

Scheduled Release Type: Will be determined when release date is scheduled. 

Scheduled Release Location: 

Parole Review Information . · ... : ... ,; . .. ·. . .,. ; ........ :): 

Offense History: 

Offense 

Date 

I 

Offense 

I 

·Will be determined when release date is scheduled. 

Sentence County Case No. Sentence (YY- Date MM-DD) 

I I 

http://offender.tdcj.texas.gov/OffenderSearchloffenderDetail.action?sid=02868435 7/24/2015
Case 2:11-cv-00107-DMC-JAD Document 2 Filed 02/03/11 Page 1 of 4 PageID: 29
Case 2:11-cv-00107-DMC-JAD Document 2 Filed 02/03/11 Page 2 of 4 PageID: 30
Case 2:11-cv-00107-DMC-JAD Document 2 Filed 02/03/11 Page 3 of 4 PageID: 31
Case 2:11-cv-00107-DMC-JAD Document 2 Filed 02/03/11 Page 4 of 4 PageID: 32
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 
| **CERTIFICATION  OF**                                   |
|---------------------------------------------------------|
| **CHIEF  EXECUTIVE OFFICER**                            |
| **AND**                                                 |
| **CHIEF  FINANCIAL OFFICER**                            |
| **PURSUANT  TO**                                        |
| **18  U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**                       |
| **AS  ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**                             |
| **SECTION 906  OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002** |

 

I, John J. Lennon, ChiefExecutive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Explortex Energy Inc., (the “Company”),hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

 
|   | (i)    | the Quarterly Report on  Form 10-Q of the Company for the three months ended July 31, 2008  (the “Quarterly Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or  15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
|   | (ii)   | the information  contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects,  the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.                                                                                                                |

 
|   | By:    |                         |
|--------|--------|------------------------------|
|   |   | */s/  John J. Lennon*        |
|   | Name:  | John J. Lennon               |
|   |   |                         |
|   | Title: | Chief Executive Officer  and |
|   |   | Chief Financial Officer      |
|   |   |                         |
|   | Date:  | September 15, 2008      |

 

----
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1248 

To exclude the discharge of certain Federal student loans from the calculation 

of gross income. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 30, 2019 

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

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To exclude the discharge of certain Federal student loans 

from the calculation of gross income. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Income-Based Repay5 ment Debt Forgiveness Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FORGIVENESS OF CERTAIN FEDERAL STUDENT 

7 LOANS EXCLUDED FROM INCOME TAX. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (1) of section 108(f) 

9 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by strikVerDate Sep 11 2014 23:10 May 03, 2019 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S1248.IS S1248

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•S 1248 IS

1 ing ‘‘any student loan if’’ and all that follows and inserting 

2 ‘‘any student loan if— 

3 ‘‘(A) such discharge was pursuant to a 

4 provision of such loan under which all or part 

5 of the indebtedness of the individual would be 

6 discharged if the individual worked for a certain 

7 period of time in certain professions for any of 

8 a broad class of employers, or 

9 ‘‘(B) in the case of a loan made by the 

10 United States or an instrumentality or agency 

11 thereof, such discharge was pursuant to any 

12 Federal program or provision of Federal law 

13 which provides for income contingent or in14 come-based repayment of such loan.’’. 

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

16 subsection (a) shall apply to discharges of loans that occur 

17 on or after July 1, 2020. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
# Fourth Court of Appe **als Sa**  **n Antonio, Texas**

August 26, 2021

No. 04

- 21

- 00303

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A.N.L., A CHILD

From the 45th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2019PA01830 Honorable Linda A. Rodriguez , Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Appellant’s motion for an extension of time to file her brief is GRANTED. Appellant’s brief is due on or before September 13, 2021

.

____________________ _____________ Irene Rios , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 26th day of August, 2021

.

________________________ ___________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ
, Clerk of Court
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
September 30, 2007 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: November 14, 2007 |  | SUSSER HOLDINGS CORPORATION
|                        |  |                            
|                        |  | By                          |  | /s/ Sam L. Susser                                 
|                        |  |                             |  | Sam L. SusserPresident 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.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection
with the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of Velocity Asset Management,
Inc. for the period ended December 31, 2007, I, John C. Kleinert, President and
Chief Executive Officer, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1. Such Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007, 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 such Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2007, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of Velocity Asset Management, Inc.

Dated: March
17, 2008

| |                                        
| | ---------------------------------------
| | /s/ John C.
  Kleinert                 
| |                                        
| | John C.
  Kleinert                     
| | President
  and Chief Executive Officer

---
# FILED JUN 0 3 2016

gde.QA Pickering J. aitta IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

No. 68990 NAKIA WOODSON, D/B/A VIP BAIL BONDS, Appellant,

vs. INTERNATIONAL FIDELITY INSURANCE COMPANY, A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION; AND ALLEGHENY CASUALTY COMPANY, A PENNSYLVANIA CORPORATION, Respondents. 

### ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL This is a pro se appeal from a district court order awarding attorney fees and costs. On May 3, 2016, this court entered an order granting appellant's untimely motion for an extension of time to file the opening brief and directed appellant to file the brief on or before May 18, 2016. That order warned appellant that failure to comply could result in the imposition of sanctions, including the dismissal of this appeal. To date, appellant has failed to file the opening brief or otherwise communicate with this court. Accordingly, we

ORDER this appeal DISMISSED.

, J.

Hardesty

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 194Th )(tbeFircc: Hon. Stefany Miley, District Judge Nakia Woodson Armstrong Teasdale, LLP/Las Vegas Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 40) 1947A <Z44.4 2

Iffigr371

'
* Pursuant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published

and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

2 45 F.3d at 927 (5th Cir. 1995).

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 97-20768

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

VERSUS

STEVEN JOSEPH GARZA,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(H-92-CR-238-2)

September 14, 1998

Before WISDOM, DUHÉ, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Steven Joseph Garza, a former police officer, appeals his conviction for conspiracy to possess

with intent to distribute cocaine and for use of a communication facility to commit a felony. He

argues that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion to sever his trial from that

of his codefendant Gatewood, also a former police officer. Garza argues that he was prejudiced by

the district court’s admission of evidence concerning Gatewood’s prior b ad act s including

Gatewood’s theft of money from a murdered drug dealer. We affirm.

In United States v. Musquiz

, 2 we rejected the identical argument raised by Gilbert Martinez

Musquiz, a codefendant of Garza and Gatewood. We wrote:

“Defendants who are indicted together generally should be tried together, particularly i n3 Id . at 931 (internal citations omitted).

2

conspiracy cases. ‘A district court should grant a severance under Rule 14 only if there is a

serious risk that a joint trial would compromise a specific trial right of one of the defendants.

. . .’ We review for abuse of discretion. Here, the district court was well within its discretion

in relying on limit

ing instructions. We presume that jurors follow the law. Evidence of one

defendant’s past crimes ‘does not ordinarily justify severance,’ even though it is inadmissible

against a codefendant. The prosecutor did not try to ascribe Gatewood’s theft to Musquiz.

In light of the explicit limit ing instruction, the claimed link between the conspiracy instruction

and the spillover guilt is too tenuous to amount to a serious risk of prejudice. There was no

abuse of discretion.” 3

This reasoning applies equally to Garza’s argument for severance. His position as a former police

officer is not sufficient to justify treatment different from that of his codefendant. The district court

did not err in denying Garza’s motion.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 28(a)

Report of Independent Chartered Accountants to the directors and shareholders of
Wellman International Limited and Subsidiaries

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Wellman
International Limited and Subsidiaries (the company) at 31 December 2003 and
2002 and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity
and other comprehensive income/(loss), and cash flows for the three years then
ended. These consolidated financial statements are the responsibility of the
company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these
consolidated financial statements based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted
in the United States of America. Those standards require that we plan and
perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial
statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a
test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial
statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and
significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall
financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a
reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above, present
fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Wellman
International Limited and Subsidiaries as of 31 December 2003 and 2002, and the
results of their operations and their cash flows for the three years ended 31
December 2003 in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the
United States of America.

/s/ KPMG
KPMG
Chartered Accountants
Dublin, Ireland

20 February 2004