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 the Quarterly Report of Renaissance Acquisition Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Barry W. Florescue, 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 to the best of 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 Company. |

| Date:  August 14, 2007 |   | /s/ Barry W.   Florescue            |
|-----------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------|
|                        |   |                                     |
|                        |   | Barry W.   Florescue                |
|                        |   | Chief   Executive Officer           |
|                        |   | (and   principal financial officer) |
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the RegistrationStatements (Form S-8 No. 333-82224, 333-119144 and 333-131506) pertaining to the National Medical Health Card Systems, Inc. and Subsidiaries 1999 Stock Option Plan of our reports dated September 12, 2006, with respect to National MedicalHealth Card Systems, Inc. and Subsidiaries consolidated financial statements and schedules, National Medical Health Card Systems, Inc. and Subsidiaries management assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of National Medical Health Card Systems, Inc. and Subsidiaries included in its Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended June 30, 2006. 

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP 

Melville,New York 

September 13, 2006
#### The James A. Garfield.1 Tebo *v.*The James A. Garfield.

*(District Court, E. D. New York.*

June 15, 1887.)

Salvage—Tug at Wharf—Fire.

The lug T. discovered a fire in the engine-room of the tug G., while the 'utter lay at a wharf, and, proceeding to her, extinguished it. While the T. ivas on iier way to the G., the watchman on the pier discovered the fire, and summoned the fire department. *JleM,*that the service was a salvage service, but that the G. had not been saved from total destruction on account of the summons sent to the fire department. Three hundred dollars was allowed as salvage award.

In Admiralty.

*John J. Alien,*for libelant.

*Edward IT. Hobbs,*for claimant.

1

 Reported by Edward G. Benedict, Esq., of the New York bar.

Benedict, J.

The services rendered by the tug-boat Tebo in extinguishing the (ire that had broken out in the engine-room of the James A. Garfield, although unattended with any risk to life or risk to the Tebo, wore salvage services, because they were services rendered voluntarily to relieve the James A. Garfield from a situation of peril, and they were successful. The fire was discovered by those on the Tebo before it had been discovered by any other person. They at once proceeded with the Tebo to tho Garfield, and by promptly pouring a stream of water upon it they extinguished the fire. The lire so extinguished was dangerous; by the services of the Tebo the damage resulting from it was reduced to a minimum.

But, while the services of the Tebo unquestionably saved the Garfield a considerable loss, I cannot agree with the advocates for the libelant in the opinion that they saved her from total destruction. The fact that the watchman on the pier discovered the fire while the Tebo ivas pro*176ceeding to the Garfield, and at once, by the fire telegraph, notified the fire department, so that an engine was at once on its way to the fire, would have reached the Garfield a few moments after the Tebo reached her, and would, as I think it may fairly be inferred, have promptly extinguished the fire, requires the conclusion that the Garfield was not in danger of total destruction. But it may be also fairly inferred from the evidence that the Garfield’s upper works would have been burnt, and her engine perhaps injured, if the Tebo had not reached her when she did. That loss was saved by the exertions of the Tebo.

The claimants have made no tender, and the extent of the offer was $25. This was much too small, in my opinion. As I view the case, $300 should be awarded, and will be a liberal reward for the services of the Tebo. For that sum, with costs, the libelant may have a decree.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

IN THE INTEREST OF: S.L.K., A MINOR

PETITION OF: H.C., FATHER

:

:

:

:

:

No. 368 EAL 2015

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 24th day of July, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED.
Damages Agreement


 


Party A: Greatmat Holdings Limited (a company
incorporated in the British Virgin Islands, hereinafter referred to as “Party A”)


 


Party B: Yunfu City Yuncheng District Changyi
Stone Plant (hereinafter referred to as “Party B”)


 


By friendly mutual consultations, and based
on equality and the principle of fairness, Party A and Party B has entered into this agreement to explain Clause 2.10 of the Exclusive
OEM Production Agreement and the Clause 1, 2 and 3 of the Supplementary Agreement on the Exclusive OEM Production Agreement. Both
parties have agreed as follows:


 


1. If Party A fails to fulfill terms of
the above agreements, Party A will pay the compensation to Party B amounted to RMB 5 million (RMB5,000,000.00) per year.


 


2. Both parties shall enter into a separate
agreement for the time and schedules of the payment.


 


3. After the above payment to Party B,
Party B’s arrangement and consequences of the payment shall no longer have any relationship with Party A.


 


4. Subsequent to the payment of compensation
from Party A to Party B, Party B guarantees that he shall no longer and in any form request any compensation for any reason in
accordance with Clause 2.10 of the Exclusive OEM Production Agreement and the Clause 1, 2 and 3 of the Supplementary Agreement
from Party A.


 


5. After the fulfillment of Part A for
its obligation of compensation, Party B guarantee that he has no longer have any rights and obligations in accordance with Clause
2.10 of the Exclusive OEM Production Agreement and the Clause 1, 2 and 3 of the Supplementary Agreement against Party A. Party
A shall no longer be responsible for the same.


 




    	 



    	 



    

 


6. This agreement is a result of real intention of both parties
and are based upon mutual consultations, fairness and reasonableness.


 


7. Both parties confirm that this agreement
has been read and understood correctly. Both parties understand the consequences involved in the violation of this agreement and
are satisfied with the outcome.


 


8. This is a one-time final and conclusive
agreement. This agreement is in duplicate, each party holds one copy, signed and sealed. Once entered into force, both parties
shall take this as final and conclusive and there will not be any dispute between both parties.


 


9. Party B confirms that no issue would be raised against Party
A in future.


 


Party A: Greatmat Holdings Limited


Legal person representative: Mr So Yun Sang, Chris


Address: Room 3202-03, 32/F., No. 148 Electric Road, North Point,
Hong Kong.


Contact: Person: Mr. So Yun Sang, Chris


Telephone: (852) 2891-2111


 


Party B: Yunfu City Yuncheng District Changyi Stone Plant


Legal person representative: Mr Tsang Hin Yick


Address: Hekou Stone Industrial Park in Yun Cheng District,
Yunfu City,


Guangdong Province, China.


Contact: Person: Mr Tsang Hin Yick


Telephone: (0766) 8211-288


 


Agreement date: 30 December, 2011
**EXHIBIT
      32**




Certifications
      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





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of China Shoe Holdings, Inc.
      (the "Company") for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Gu
      Xianzhong, as President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company and Angus
      Cheung Ming, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company,each 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 the best of 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/
      Gu
      Xianzhong





Name:
      Gu
      Xianzhong


Title:
      President and Chief Executive Officer


(Principal
      Executive Officer)








/s/
      Angus
      Cheung Ming





Name:
      Angus Cheung Ming


Title:
      Chief Financial Officer


(Principal
      Financial and Accounting Officer)





Date:
      August 19, 2008





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
      authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
      in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
      by Section 906, has been provided to SecureCARE Technologies, Inc. and will
      be
      retained by China Shoe Holdings, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
      Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Case 2:11-cr-00001-SDW Document 3 Filed 01/31/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 4
Case 2:11-cr-00001-SDW Document 3 Filed 01/31/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 5
---

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

I, James J. Pierce, 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 quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Star Resorts
      Development Inc. for the period ended June 30, 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 Star Resorts Development Inc..                                                               

Date: August 13, 2008



| | /s/ James J.
    Pierce                                           
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------
| | James J.
      Pierce                                             
| | Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer                             
| | Principal Financial Officer and Principal
      Accounting Officer



A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Star Resorts
Development Inc. and will be retained by Star Resorts Development Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.

---
#### Jessie COLLINS and Daniel Pedraza, Sr., Plaintiffs, v. UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, CHEMICAL DIVISION, and Local 347, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO, and Texas City, Texas Metal Trades Council, AFL-CIO, Defendants.

Civ. A. Nos. 69-G-184, 70-G-65.

United States District Court, S. D. Texas, Galveston Division.

March 17, 1971.

McDonald & McDonald, Houston, Tex., Jack Greenberg and William L. Robinson, New York City, for plaintiffs.

Samuel E. Hooper, V. R. Burch, Jr., Baker & Botts, Houston, Tex., William C. Treanor and Richard P. Lawlor, New York City, William N. Wheat, W. Arthur Combs, Houston, Tex., for defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

NOEL, District Judge.

This is an employment discrimination suit brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. Joined as codefendant in one of the suits consolidated herein was Local 347 of the International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO. This defendant has moved for summary judgment in its favor, contending that it is not a party to the collective bargaining agreement which is made the basis of one of the allegations of discrimination. A supporting affidavit is offered. Rule 56, Fed.R.Civ.P.

Plaintiffs have responded, indicating no opposition to entry of judgment for defendant, but opposing the taxing of *209costs against plaintiffs. In support of this position, plaintiffs point out that they filed a charge against Local 347 with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and that the Commission found reasonable cause to believe that Local 347 had violated the Act. Suit was then filed. Since plaintiffs sued the Local in reliance upon the ill-advised encouragement of the Commission, it is apparently thought to follow that fairness requires plaintiffs to be relieved of costs.

As a matter of course, costs are allowed to the prevailing party unless the court otherwise directs. Rule 54(d), Fed.R.Civ.P., 6 Moore’s Federal Practice §§ 54.70(1) et seq. The instant case presents no occasion for departure from the general rule. Between these parties, the equities are clear as to which should bear the burden of the mistake. Defendant did nothing save be sued, and should not be penalized for having defended itself. On the other hand, plaintiffs brought the suit and erroneously joined Local 347. The fact that plaintiffs did so on the basis of bad advice from a governmental entity is unfortunate, but is of no legal consequence on the point of costs.

The motion of Local 347 for summary judgment, being unopposed, shall be granted. Defendant shall, within 10 days, submit a proposed form of judgment consistent herewith, taxing the customary costs to plaintiff, and approved as to form by plaintiff.
HAKEM SIRYANI

JUDGEMENT ON VIOLATION OF PROBATION

This matter having come before the Court on the amended

petition of the United States Probation Office, dated July 24,

2012, for a hearing regarding the failure of defendant Hakem

Siryani (Anthony Scordo, Esq., appearing) to comply with certain

conditions of probation imposed on June 1, 2011; and the

defendant having entered a guilty plea on December 3, 2012 to

Violation No. 1, which required that he not commit another crime,and to Violation No.3, which required that he refrain from the

illegal use of drugs, ander good cause shown;

IT IS on this i) day of January, 2013,

ORDERED that the defendant is adjudged guilty of Violation 1

and Violation 3;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that his term of probation is hereby

revoked;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendant is hereby committed

to the custody of the Bureau of Prisons to be imprisoned for a

term of twelve months and one day on Violation No. 1, and a term

of nine months on Violation No. 3, these sentences to be served

concurrently;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that upon release from imprisonment,

the defendant shall be placed on supervised release for a term of

two years. The term shall consist of a term of two years on each

of Violation 1 and Violation 2, both terms to be served

concurrently;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all other conditions of the

judgment of conviction entered in this matter shall remain in

full force and effect

United States District Judge
<PAGE>



                                  Exhibit 23.0

                                BDO Seidman, LLP
                      1900 Avenue of the Starts, 11th Floor
                              Los Angeles, CA 90067

               Consent of Independent Certified Public Accountants

Sorrento Networks Corporation.
San Diego, California

We hereby consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Nos. 333-28863, 333-22291 and 333-51445) 333-59730 and 333-68850 (IIG S-3
Debenture S-3) on Form S-3 and No. 333-92111 on Form S-8 of Sorrento Networks
Corporation (formerly Osicom Technologies, Inc.) of our report, dated April 11,
2003 (which contains an explanatory paragraph regarding the Company's ability to
continue as a going concern), relating to the consolidated balance sheets of
Sorrento Networks Corporation and subsidiaries as of January 31, 2003 and 2002,
and the related consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive loss,
stockholders' equity, and cash flows for the years ended January 31, 2003, 2002
and 2001, which report appears in the January 31, 2003 annual report on Form
10-K of Sorrento Networks Corporation.

                                                      BDO SEIDMAN, LLP

Los Angeles, California
April 11, 2003
#### National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc., Respondent, v John J. Fiero et al., Appellants.

[827 NYS2d 4]

*548Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Carol R. Edmead, J.), entered June 1, 2006, which granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and awarded it the principal sum of $1,010,809.25, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiffs action to collect the disciplinary fine it had imposed was not a proceeding to confirm an arbitration award, and was thus not subject to a one-year limitation period (CPLR 7510). Plaintiff is authorized by Congress to promulgate and enforce rules governing the conduct of its members *(see DL Capital Group, LLC v Nasdaq Stock Mkt., Inc.,*409 F3d 93, 95 [2d Cir 2005]). The instant fine was authorized by plaintiffs bylaws and rules, and any sanction upheld by its National Adjudicatory Council was subject to review by the Securities and Exchange Commission and, ultimately, by the United States Court of Appeals (s*ee Mister Discount Stockbrokers, Inc. v Securities & Exch. Commn.,*768 F2d 875, 876 [7th Cir 1985]). In addition, the form U-4 executed by the individual defendant obligated him to comply with any penalty imposed by plaintiff. Defendants’ claim of selective enforcement, while a defense in theory *(see Matter of 303 W. 42nd St. Corp. v Klein,*46 NY2d 686, 693 [1979]), was properly dismissed because plaintiff is a private actor *(see Desiderio v National Assn, of Sec. Dealers, Inc.,*191 F3d 198, 206 [2d Cir 1999], *cert denied*531 US 1069 [2001]). Moreover, while defendants submitted general pronouncements regarding plaintiffs selective enforcement during the years prior to commencement of the underlying disciplinary proceeding, they failed to submit evidence in support of their assertion that plaintiffs proceeding against them suffered from such infirmity. Defendants’ claimed need for discovery, unsupported by discovery notices and failing to specify what information was needed, was an ineffectual “mere hope” insufficient to withstand summary judgment *(see Moran v Regency Sav. Bank, ES.B.,*20 AD3d 305, 306 [2005]). The counterclaims, including those based on plaintiffs commencement of another proceeding that was ultimately held to be unauthorized, were properly dismissed based on plaintiffs immunity, since its actions had been taken within the scope of its official duties under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 *(see Scher v National Assn, of Sec. Dealers, Inc.,*386 F Supp 2d 402, 406-407 [SD NY 2005]; *see also D’Alessio v New York Stock Exch., Inc.,*258 F3d 93, 104-106 [2d Cir 2001], *cert denied*534 US 1066 [2001]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.E, Saxe, Marlow, Sullivan and Williams, JJ.
#### Lewis MITCHELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GOVERNOR OF ALABAMA, Attorney General, State of Alabama, Taishiera Parker, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 12-13712

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Dec. 6, 2012.

Ronnie L. Williams, Williams & Associates, LLC, Mobile, AL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Jennifer M. Bush, State of Alabama Department of Human Resources, Luther J. Strange, III, Attorney General’s Office, Montgomery, AL, Charles L. Miller, Jr., Charles L. Miller Jr. PC, Mobile, AL, for Defendants-Appellees.

*855Before TJOFLAT, MARCUS and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

We conclude that the *Rooker-Feldman*doctrine bars appellant’s claims for the reasons stated in the April 20, 2011 Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. The judgment of the District Court adopting the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation is accordingly

AFFIRMED.