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 **

| Date:                February                12, 2008 |   | /s/                MICHAEL C. LEE                                                                                                                                                       |
|-------------------------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                  |   | Michael                C. Lee                                                                                                                                                           |
|                                                  |   |                                                                                                                                                                                    |
|                                                  |   | President                and Chief Executive Officer ZipGlobal                Holdings, Inc.(Principal                Executive Officer and PrincipalAccounting                Officer) |

----
<PAGE>   1
                               JASON INCORPORATED                   EXHIBIT 21.1
                                  SUBSIDIARIES
                                      10-K


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                 NAME                         JURISDICTION                PERCENT
                                                                          OWNERSHIP
-----------------------------------------   --------------------   ------------------------

<S>                                         <C>                                     <C>   
Osborn de Venezuela                         Venezuela                               100.00

Jason Industrial Products International     Barbados                                100.00

Jason Nevada, Inc.                          Nevada                                  100.00

Braden Nevada, Inc.                         Nevada                                  100.00

Deltak Nevada, Inc.                         Nevada                                  100.00

Janesville de Mexico                        Mexico                                   79.69

Jason Ohio Corporation                      Ohio                                    100.00

JacksonLea de Mexico                        Mexico                                  100.00

JacksonLea Canada                           Canada                                  100.00

Jason Canada, Inc.                          Canada                                  100.00

Jason Components Shenzhen                   China                                   100.00

Jason Components Shanghai                   China                                   100.00

Jason Holding GmbH                          Germany                                 100.00

Jason GmbH                                  Germany                                  99.98

Brushes International Wennerberg            Sweden                                   99.98

Brushes International Romania               Romania                                  59.99

Jason Holdings UK Limited                   UK                                      100.00

Janesville Products Limited                 UK                                      100.00

Brushes International                       UK                                      100.00

Webb Jarratt Limited                        UK                                      100.00

Brushes International Dendix                UK                                      100.00

Forcepass Limited                           UK                                      100.00

Brushes International Osborn                France                                  100.00

Beamnatural Limited                         UK                                      100.00

Brushes International                       Portugal                                100.00

Lee & James Limited                         UK                                      100.00

Brushes International Asberg                Brazil                                  100.00

Dendix Ski Limited                          UK                                      100.00
</TABLE>
Case 3:11-cv-00890-MLC-LHG Document 79 Filed 03/21/13 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 432
Case 3:11-cv-00890-MLC-LHG Document 79 Filed 03/21/13 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 433
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6352

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

BILLY CHARLES BURGESS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III, Chief 

District Judge. (5:08-cr-00341-D-1)

Submitted: July 23, 2015 Decided: July 27, 2015

Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Billy Charles Burgess, Appellant Pro Se. G. Norman Acker, III, 

Ethan A. Ontjes, Assistant United States Attorneys, Seth Morgan 

Wood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Billy Charles Burgess seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The 

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial 

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the 

merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment 

of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. 

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 

U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on 

procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the 

dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion 

states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. 

Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Burgess has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

AMAL GHANNAM GUSTAFSON, an

individual,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

SUNTRUST MORTGAGE, INC., a

Virginia Corporation,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 13-56270

D.C. No. 2:13-cv-01502-PSG-SH

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Philip S. Gutierrez, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted July 10, 2015

Pasadena, California

Before: W. FLETCHER, PAEZ, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

Amal Gustafson appeals the district court’s orders denying her motion to

remand and dismissing her suit for failure to file a timely opposition. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.

FILED

JUL 24 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Gustafson first argues that the district court erred in denying her motion to

remand her case to state court. We disagree. Fairly read, Gustafson’s state-court

complaint stated that she sought “restitution ‘for all sums received by Defendant

with respect to the mortgages, including, without limitation, interest payments,

fees, and premiums received upon selling the mortgages at an inflated value.’” 

The district court did not err, on the basis of this language, in concluding that

Gustafson placed in controversy the value of all the mortgage payments she had

made to date, nor in concluding that that sum was over $75,000.

Gustafson also argues that the district court abused its discretion in

dismissing her suit for failure to file a timely opposition. We disagree. Although

we agree that SunTrust was not materially prejudiced by Gustafson’s failure to file

a timely opposition, and that other remedies might have been available, we will not

reverse the district court’s dismissal for failure to comply with local rules without

“a definite and firm conviction that the court below committed a clear error of

judgment.” Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992). Although the

district court may have been somewhat overzealous in enforcing the local rules, we

see no “clear error of judgment” here. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th

Cir. 1995) (per curiam). Gustafson had previously violated a different local rule,

which violation the district court had excused. Further, although the docket

2
indicates that Gustafson filed her opposition before the court’s dismissal order was

docketed, the text of that order makes clear that, at the time the court wrote the

order, Gustafson had not responded to the motion to dismiss at all. Under these

circumstances, the court acted within its discretion.

AFFIRMED.1

1

 Defendants’ Motions for Judicial Notice are hereby DENIED.

3
**Exhibit 23****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED****PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**        We consent to the incorporation by reference in Post-EffectiveAmendment No. 4 to the Registration Statement(Form S-8No. 2-72410) pertaining to the UST Inc. Employees’Savings Plan, the Registration Statement(Form S-8No. 333-36844)pertaining to the 1992 Stock Option Plan, Post-EffectiveAmendment No. 1 to the Registration Statement(Form S-8No. 333-60698)pertaining to the 2001 Stock Option Plan, the RegistrationStatement(Form S-8No. 33-59229)pertaining to the Nonemployee Directors’ Stock Option Plan,the Registration Statement(Form S-4No. 333-101036)pertaining to the registration of senior notes due July 15,2012, and the Registration Statement(Form S-4No. 333-85285)pertaining to the registration of senior notes due June 1,2009, of our reports dated February 23, 2006 with respectto the consolidated financial statements and schedule of USTInc., UST Inc. management’s assessment of the effectivenessof internal control over financial reporting, and theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting ofUST Inc. included in the Annual Report(Form 10-K) forthe year ended December 31, 2005./s/ Ernst & Young LLPStamford, ConnecticutFebruary 23, 2006**78**
Exhibit 99.2

Section 906 Certification

 

Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the undersigned hereby certifies that:

(1) I have reviewed the Annual Report on Form 10-Kof Inland's Monthly Income Fund, L.P. (the "Report") to which this statement is an Exhibit;

(2) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(3) The information contained in the Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Inland's Monthly Income Fund, L.P.

 

By: Inland Real Estate Investment Corporation

       General Partner

/S/ Kelly Tucek____________________________________

Name: Kelly Tucek

Title: Assistant Vice President of the General Partner and

         Principal Financial Officer of Inland's Monthly Income Fund, L.P.

Date: March 25, 2003
S04A1254.

#### PULLIUM v. THE STATE.

(602 SE2d 833)

Fletcher, Chief Justice.

James Ronald Pullium petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, contending that guilty pleas he entered in 1960 for robbery and in 1971 for criminal attempt to commit burglary do not pass constitutional scrutiny. The habeas court agreed with respect to the 1960 plea, but held that the 1971 plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered. This Court granted Pullium’s application for a certificate of probable cause to appeal. After reviewing the record, we conclude that the 1971 plea was also constitutionally invalid, and therefore reverse the habeas court’s denial of relief.

*355Decided September 13, 2004.

James R. Pullium, *pro se.*

*PaulL. Howard, Jr., District Attorney, Bettieanne C. Hart, Elizabeth A. Baker, Assistant District Attorneys,*for appellee.

Pullium is currently serving a federal sentence for a 1992 bank robbery in Tennessee. Pullium’s 1971 conviction, entered on his guilty plea, is being used to enhance his federal sentence. The only record that remains from 1971 is a one-page pre-printed waiver form with typewritten answers, plus the trial judge’s attestation of that form. Although the form indicates that Pullium waived certain rights, it nowhere indicates that he was advised of, and waived, the three constitutional rights required for a valid guilty plea: the right against compulsory self-incrimination, the right to a trial by jury, and the right to confront his accusers.1 Accordingly, the State has not met its burden of showing that Pullium knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered his guilty plea, and thus his 1971 conviction must be vacated.2

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur.*

1

*Boykin v. Alabama,*395 U. S. 238 (89 SC 1709, 23 LE2d 274) (1969).

2

*Foskey v. Battle,*277 Ga. 480 (591 SE2d 802) (2004).
Case 3:11-cv-01160-AET -DEA Document 14 Filed 09/06/11 Page 1 of 4 PageID: 90
Case 3:11-cv-01160-AET -DEA Document 14 Filed 09/06/11 Page 2 of 4 PageID: 91
Case 3:11-cv-01160-AET -DEA Document 14 Filed 09/06/11 Page 3 of 4 PageID: 92
Case 3:11-cv-01160-AET -DEA Document 14 Filed 09/06/11 Page 4 of 4 PageID: 93
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the Annual Report of Atlantis BusinessDevelopment Corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-K for the year endingDecember 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the"Report"), I, Christopher Dubeau, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.Section 135)), that to my knowledge:

- The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)  of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
- The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material  respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 

***/s/ Christopher Dubeau       ***

Christopher Dubeau, CEO
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 130 (Thursday, July 9, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 32910]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-16156]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER96-780-020]


Southern Company Services, Inc.; Notice of Filing

June 29, 2009.
    Take notice that on January 9, 2009, Southern Company Services, 
Inc., as agent for Alabama Power Company, Georgia Power Company, Gulf 
Power Company, Mississippi Power Company and Southern Power Company, 
submit additional information in compliance with the Commission's 
December 19, 2008 Letter Order.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. 
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of 
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#01474453424e6f6d686f64527471716e737541676473622f666e77"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="692f2c3b2a26070500070c3a1c1919061b1d290f0c1b0a470e061f">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on July 8, 2009.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-16156 Filed 7-8-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# Result 8.4
---

EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Charlie Lee, Principal Accounting Officer of
Pure Pharmaceuticals Corp. (the Company), 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) | the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the
      period ended December 31, 2008 (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: August 14, 2009

*/s/ Charlie Lee*Charlie LeePrincipal
Accounting Officer

---
Exhibit 15.2**CONSENT OFINDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**     We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in theRegistration Statements (Form S-8 No. 333-142963 and Form S-8 No. 333-119616) of GigaMedia Limited of our report datedApril 23, 2007,except for Note 25(a), as to which the date is May 8, 2007, and Note 25(b), as to which the date isJune 1, 2007, which appears on page F-1 of the Annual Report on this Form 20-F of GigaMedia Limitedfor the year ended December 31, 2006. /s/ GHP HORWATH, P.C.
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 Quarterly Report of All American Pet Company, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Barry Schwartz, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





1.
The 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/ Barry SchwartzBarry SchwartzChief Executive OfficerNovember 17, 2010
# table132_q14.5_size
Exhibit 32.2


                             CERTIFICATE 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 Tetragenex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Neil
Martucci, Chief Financial Officer hereby 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 as of and for the period covered by the
               Report.


                                                    /s/ Neil Martucci
                                                    -----------------
                                                    Neil Martucci
                                                    Chief Financial Officer
                                                    August 14, 2007
#### Gary Fiumara et al., Respondents, v C & S Wholesale Grocers, Inc., Appellant.

[822 NYS2d 731]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaughan, J.), dated January 11, 2006, which denied its motion for leave to amend its answer to add an affirmative defense.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, with costs, the motion is granted, and the proposed amended answer, in the form annexed to the defendant’s moving papers, is deemed served upon the plaintiffs upon service of a copy of this decision and order.

The Supreme Court should have granted the defendant’s motion for leave to amend its answer. It cannot be said that the proposed amendment was palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit and the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate prejudice or surprise *(see Iannone v Iannone,*31 AD3d 713 [2006]; *AFBT-II, LLC v Country Vil. on Mooney Pond, Inc.,*21 AD3d 972, 972-973 [2005]; *Naranjo v Star Corrugated Box Co., Inc.,*11 AD3d 438 [2004]; *Holchendler v We Transp.,*292 AD2d 568, 568-569 [2002]; *Northbay Constr. Co. v Bauco Constr. Corp.,*275 AD2d 310, 311-312 [2000]). Adams, J.E, Krausman, Rivera and Lifson, JJ., concur.
#### Stacey HAILEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Patrick R. DONAHOE, Postmaster General & Chief Executive Officer, United States Postal Service, Defendant-Ap-pellee.

No. 12-2166.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 13, 2012.

Decided: Dec. 18, 2012.

Stacey Hailey, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Linn Eckert, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Stacey Hailey appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his claims of employment discrimination. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant Hailey’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Hailey v. Donahoe,*No. 6:11-cv-00022-NKM-RSB, 2012 WL 4458451 (W.D.Va. July 30, 2012). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*