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**

In connection with the yearly report of China Pharma Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Zhilin Li, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant        to 18 U.S.C. Sec.1350 as adopted pursuant 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 and 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.                 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to China Pharma Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by China Pharma Holdings, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

|  |   |   | Date: June 24, 2009                            |   |   |
|--|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
|  |        |        |                                           |        |        |
|  |   |   | By: /s/ Zhilin Li                              |   |   |
|  |   |   |        Zhilin Li |   |   |
|  |   |   | Chief Executive Officer                        |
Joseph A. Boyle 

Vincent P. Rao II 

KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP 

200 Kimball Drive 

Parsippany, New Jersey 07054 

(973) 503-5900 

Attorneys for Defendant 

Zydus Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ZYDUS PHARMACEUTICALS 

USA, INC., 

Civil Action No.: 2:11-cv-02582-DMCJAD 

RULE 7.1 STATEMENT 

Defendant. 

Pursuant to Rule 7.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the 

undersigned counsel for Zydus Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. states that Zydus 

International Pvt. Ltd. — Ireland is the parent company, and one hundred percent 

(100%) owner, of Zydus Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. Cadila Healthcare Limited, 

India, an Indian based publicly traded entity, is the one hundred percent (100%) 

owner of Zydus International Pvt. Ltd. — Ireland and the ultimate parent of Zydus 

Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. No publicly held entity owns ten percent (10%) or 

1 

Case 2:11-cv-02582-DMC -JAD Document 8 Filed 07/14/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 53
more of the stock of Cadila Healthcare Limited, India. 

Dated: July 14, 2011 KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP 

By: s/ Vincent P. Rao II 

Joseph A. Boyle 

Vincent P. Rao II 

200 Kimball Drive 

Parsippany, New Jersey 07054 

(973) 503-5900 

Attorneys for Defendant 

Zydus Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. 

Of Counsel: 

Steven J. Moore 

Kelley Drye & Warren LLP 

400 Atlantic Street 

Stamford, CT 06901-3229 

Phone: (203) 351-8020 

Fax: (203) 327-2669 

2 

Case 2:11-cv-02582-DMC -JAD Document 8 Filed 07/14/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 54
Case 2:11-cr-00080-SDW Document 129 Filed 09/09/11 Page 1 of 5 PageID: 440
Case 2:11-cr-00080-SDW Document 129 Filed 09/09/11 Page 2 of 5 PageID: 441
Case 2:11-cr-00080-SDW Document 129 Filed 09/09/11 Page 3 of 5 PageID: 442
Case 2:11-cr-00080-SDW Document 129 Filed 09/09/11 Page 4 of 5 PageID: 443
Case 2:11-cr-00080-SDW Document 129 Filed 09/09/11 Page 5 of 5 PageID: 444
Exhibit 32.1  Certification of Principal Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002) In connection with the quarterly Report of Blugrass Energy, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John Kenney Berscht, Principal 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; 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/ John Kenney BerschtJohn Kenney BerschtPrincipal Executive Officer  PrincipalFebruary 14, 2011 This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### In the Matter of Monay W., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant.

[822 NYS2d 613]

In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, the appeal is from an order of fact finding and disposition (one paper) of the Family Court, Westchester County (Klein, J.), entered December 8, 2005, made after a hearing, which found that the appellant had committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crime of menacing in the third degree, adjudged her to be a juvenile delinquent, and placed her under probation supervision by the Westchester County Department of Probation for a period of 12 months ending August 12, 2006.

Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order as placed the appellant under probation supervision by the Westchester County Department of Probation for a period of 12 months is dismissed as academic; and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.

The appeal from so much of the order of disposition as placed the appellant under probation supervision by the Westchester County Department of Probation for a period of 12 months ending August 12, 2006, has been rendered academic, as the period of placement has expired *(see Matter of Rosario S.,*18 AD3d 563 [2005]; *Matter of Paul C.,*5 AD3d 592 [2004]). However, because there may be collateral consequences resulting from the adjudication of delinquency, that portion of the appeal which brings up for review that portion of the order which adjudicated the appellant as a juvenile delinquent is not academic *(see*Family Ct Act § 783; *Matter of Dorothy D.,*49 NY2d 212 [1980]; *Matter of Ricky A.,*11 AD3d 532 [2004]).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency *(see Matter of David H.,*69 NY2d 792, 793 [1987]; *Matter of Nikita P.,*3 AD3d 499, 500 [2004]; *see also*
      *810
      *People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the appellant committed acts, which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crime of menacing in the third degree under Penal Law § 120.15. Examined in isolation, the necessary elements of the crime, an intent to place another in fear of, inter alia, imminent physical injury by a physical menace, could properly have been inferred from the appellant waving the knife in the air while standing four feet from the complainant and asking her if she wanted to fight *(see Matter of Pedro H.,*308 AD2d 374 [2003]; *cf. Matter of O’Herron v O’Herron,*300 AD2d 491 [2002]). Moreover, the court’s findings were not against the weight of the evidence.

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Florio, J.P, Krausman, Luciano and Skelos, JJ., concur.
Count OF CRINTNAL APPEALS

~2l
AUSTIN . TEXAS IS) U4 24
ARTHUR LOWE #669450
HuCWES UNIT. ou\y 220)S
tr: 2. BOX 4/406 COURT oF ge VED IN
GATESVILLE, TEXAS TINAL APPEAL
WSF JUL 27 2015

-— AbelAs
RE: ARTHUD DAVED Lowe etAcoste, Clerk
CCA Nb. \WIR-25,679-24 > TR. ChUSE No. LSG156

Dear (cca), Clerk, Abel Meosta.

LU'm writing fov information concerning the
Above lavit RuMbev. 1 havent received Ahy infoy mation
from you oy youv office. a
L sent a brevious \e+tey requesting invMation Over
TWO -Wweeks ago.
XT nailed for Shing by my date and Signatuve July 10, 2o1s.

by the sequence of your office filing would show the above.
file Kumbev of the “MOTTON FORLEAVE To FILE wiccr OF MANDAMUS.

1 avuly Appreciate your consideration. THANIKC YOU... May
Gob \less you, your tanily and Friends.

Sincere | Vv

Linthuy, Soe.
A@ruure Dewrd Lowe
TDCD-Lb* 667450
, CHfllSTOPHEfl\4\PRINE

CLERK.

FILED IN

1ST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON. TEXAS

JUL 27 2015

>y^/ /kay^e J%%Zt^2y?<&aSX' /&/yfc&&sc/ <&*/ yp/e ^^^/^>y^ ^^A^.^/^^y4^^ x£k/ J%,'#/'/£^/^k^f4tfu>&£

s>^/&2/sf -£z*ytzA- >4£?r^ y^zpr&L J^^^d- sog^/ s&<^ /g^, /&?-

fitM/g^ y& y?A^, &4&S/&AS y^a/ ^£. y$yx?//eaj? ^gza& *

y^Z^ &^^^scy<'y^k/£tests ^ey^^yu %^^>/&?t£e*g/ ^^

^4ff&X /&2fLc^ ^^ &&l s^> y?A^?s^/s^ y0ts?> J)d?<L-

&&&^ /2*y€>4?,kssk^ s4p /£^ sfauS^./&,jc&&^ yfed

*&£&l« /xk~/<r^&# y4/t 6&&/L ^v>te_ jz^sl /£/?:&*//.
-''^•rr&v

RECEIVED

FIRST COURT OFAPPEALS |

(-|0;jQ-rr-M TpXAS

JUL 2 7 2015

CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE

ASL

CLERK

RECEIVED

..HI"*

23' JUL 2ffifS: W a\T. ,. .'2—*

' 'J,««cl,*,**>»

_£<?/ ^Zfz&l?*- /^feu^

•l'l'il'l'iM',i'JM'l'»-l'i'lijlM'il»"r"ll''IIJIII'»'li

<$••
HOUSEHOLD DATA

ANNUAL AVERAGES

21. Persons at work in nonagricultural industries by class of worker and usual full- or part-time status

(Numbers in thousands)

Industry and class of worker

2004

Total

at

work

Worked 1 to 34 hours

Worked

35 hours

or more

Average hours

Total

For

economic

reasons

For noneconomic

reasons

Total

at

work

Persons who

usually work

full time

Usually

work

full

time

Usually

work

part

time

 Total, 16 years and over ......................................................... 131,637 31,801 4,469 8,306 19,026 99,836 39.0 42.8

Wage and salary workers ......................................................... 122,691 28,766 3,933 7,681 17,151 93,925 39.0 42.6

 Mining ..................................................................................... 502 41 6 22 14 460 49.2 50.2

 Construction ........................................................................... 8,647 1,452 417 617 418 7,195 40.7 42.1

 Manufacturing ......................................................................... 15,698 1,683 305 872 506 14,015 42.4 43.2

 Durable goods ...................................................................... 9,838 997 146 560 292 8,841 42.6 43.3

 Nondurable goods ................................................................ 5,860 686 160 312 214 5,173 42.0 43.0

 Wholesale and retail trade ...................................................... 19,079 5,147 712 898 3,537 13,932 38.2 43.0

 Transportation and utilities ..................................................... 6,342 1,017 185 386 446 5,325 42.0 44.0

 Information .............................................................................. 3,229 663 72 221 369 2,566 39.6 42.7

 Financial activities .................................................................. 8,903 1,619 115 649 856 7,284 40.1 42.3

 Professional and business services ....................................... 11,761 2,378 407 706 1,265 9,382 40.1 43.1

 Education and health services ................................................ 25,880 7,403 664 1,855 4,884 18,477 37.3 41.7

 Leisure and hospitality ............................................................ 10,812 4,571 751 474 3,347 6,241 34.0 42.1

 Other services ........................................................................ 5,691 1,789 261 293 1,235 3,902 36.8 42.8

 Other services, except private households ........................... 4,938 1,356 172 253 931 3,583 38.0 43.0

 Private households ............................................................... 752 433 89 40 304 319 29.1 41.2

 Public administration .............................................................. 6,148 1,002 39 690 274 5,146 40.9 41.9

Self-employed workers ............................................................. 8,857 2,981 531 616 1,833 5,876 38.4 44.7

Unpaid family workers .............................................................. 90 54 5 8 42 35 31.3 41.7

 NOTE: Beginning in January 2004, data reflect revised population controls used in the household survey.

232
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED September 13, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-30463 Summary Calendar

TOMMIE ANDERSON, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus BUREAU OF PRISONS; WARDEN TAPIA, Respondents-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 1:04-CV-2458

-------------------- Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Tommie Anderson, federal prisoner # 24492-034, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. Anderson contends that his claims were properly brought under § 2241 because he challenged the manner in which his sentence was being executed by the Bureau of Prisons (BOP). Specifically, he argued that his detention was unconstitutional because neither the indictment, the judgment and commitment order, the presentenceNo. 05-30463 -2- report, nor the BOP’s records specified the penalty statute under which he was serving his sentence. Despite his assertions to the contrary, Anderson challenged the legality of his conviction and sentence, not the execution of his sentence by the BOP. Therefore, his § 2241 petition was properly construed as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. See Tolliver v. Dobre , 211 F.3d 876, 877-78 (5th Cir. 2000). Further, Anderson’s claims do not fall within the savings clause of § 2255. A prior unsuccessful § 2255 motion, or the inability to meet the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act’s second or successive requirement, does not render § 2255 inadequate or ineffective. Id. at 878. Anderson has also not

shown that his claims rely on a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision which establishes that he may have been convicted of

a nonexistent offense and that his claims were foreclosed by circuit law at the time when the claims should have been raised in his trial, appeal, or first § 2255 motion. S ee Reyes-Requena v. United States , 243 F.3d 893, 904 (5th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
#### Angel Ayala et al., Respondents, v Boris Gutin, Appellant.

[853 NYS2d 665]

The plaintiffs commenced this action to recover damages allegedly arising from a trip and fall over a dangerous and defective door saddle. The defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The Supreme Court denied the motion. We affirm.

Generally, the issue of whether a dangerous or defective condition exists depends on the particular facts of each case, and is properly a question of fact for the jury *(see Trincere v County of Suffolk,*90 NY2d 976 [1997]; *Taussig v Luxury Cars of Smithtown, Inc.,*31 AD3d 533 [2006]). However, a property owner may not be held liable for trivial defects, not constituting a trap or a nuisance, over which a person might merely stumble, stub his or her toes, or trip *(see Taussig v Luxury Cars of Smithtown, Inc.,*31 AD3d 533 [2006]). In determining whether a defect is trivial, the court must examine all of the facts presented, including the “width, depth, elevation, irregularity and appearance of the defect along with the time, place, and circumstance of the injury” *(Trincere v County of Suffolk,*90 NY2d 976, 978 [1997]; *see Taussig v Luxury Cars of Smithtown, Inc.,*31 AD3d 533 [2006]). Here, in support of his motion, the defendant made a prima facie showing that the alleged dangerous and defective condition of the saddle was too trivial to be *678actionable *(see Trincere v County of Suffolk,*90 NY2d 976, 978 [1997]; *see also Taussig v Luxury Cars of Smithtown, Inc.,*31 AD3d 533 [2006]). However, in opposition, the plaintiffs raised triable issues of fact *(see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320 [1986]; *Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557 [1980]). Thus, the motion was properly denied. Spolzino, J.P., Ritter, Dillon, Balkin and Leventhal, JJ., concur.
```

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 129 (Wednesday, July 8, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32647-32648]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-16016]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES

Meeting of the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Rules of 
Bankruptcy Procedure

AGENCY: Judicial Conference of the United States Advisory Committee on 
Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure.

[[Page 32648]]

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Advisory Committee on Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure will 
hold a two-day meeting. The meeting will be open to public observation 
but not participation.

DATES: April 29-30, 2010.
    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The Windsor Court Hotel, 300 Gravier Street, New Orleans, LA 
70130.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John K. Rabiej, Chief, Rules Committee 
Support Office, Administrative Office of the United States Courts, 
Washington, DC 20544, telephone (202) 502-1820.

    Dated: July 1, 2009.
John K. Rabiej,
Chief, Rules Committee Support Office.
[FR Doc. E9-16016 Filed 7-7-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 2210-55-M
```
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 132 (Monday, July 13, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 33475]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-16453]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

[Docket No. ATF 32N; ATF O 1120.8]


Delegation Order--Authority To Facilitate Implementation of the 
NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007

    1. Purpose. This order delegates the authority to exercise the 
authorities and responsibilities committed to the Director of the 
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) under the 
NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007, Public Law 110-180 (NIAA). 
This authority is to establish and enforce the criteria that applicable 
Federal departments and agencies and states use to create qualifying 
relief from firearms disabilities programs, to make decisions as to 
whether applicable Federal departments and agencies and states have 
properly implemented and certified relief from firearms disabilities 
programs under the NIAA, and to make any related determinations under 
the NIAA regarding such relief from firearms disabilities programs.
    2. Delegations. Under the authority vested in the Director, Bureau 
of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, by Title 28 U.S.C. 599A, 
28 CFR 0.130-0.133, and Attorney General Order Number 3072-2009, 
Delegation of Authority to the Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, 
Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to Facilitate Implementation of the 
NICS Improvement Amendments of 2007, I hereby delegate to the Assistant 
Director, Enforcement Programs and Services, the authority to exercise 
the authorities and responsibilities committed to the Director of ATF 
under the NIAA. This authority is to establish and enforce the criteria 
that applicable Federal departments and agencies and states use to 
create qualifying relief from firearms disabilities programs, to make 
decisions as to whether applicable Federal departments and agencies and 
states have properly implemented and certified relief from firearms 
disabilities programs under the NIAA, and to make any related 
determinations under the NIAA regarding such relief from firearms 
disabilities programs.
    3. Redelegation. The authority in this order may be redelegated to 
a position not lower than the Chief, Firearms Programs Division.
    4. Questions. Questions regarding this order should be addressed to 
the Chief, Firearms Programs Division at (202) 648-7090.

    Signed: June 22, 2009.
Kenneth Melson,
Acting Director.
[FR Doc. E9-16453 Filed 7-10-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-FY-P
#### Harper *v.*The State.

■Simmons, C. J. — The head-note in the case of *Bowman*v. *The State,*decided this day, is precisely applicable to this case.

November 26,1894.

*Judgment reversed.*
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Starlite Acupuncture, P.C., as Assignee of Tarrats, Luis, Respondent, <br><br>against<br><br>MVAIC, Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Marshall &amp; Marshall, PLLC (Barbara Carabell of counsel), for appellant.The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for respondent.</p><p>Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (John J. Kelley, J.), entered August 17, 2016. The order denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.</p><p>ORDERED that the order is reversed, with $30 costs, and defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.</p><p>In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation (sued herein as MVAIC) appeals from an order of the Civil Court which denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.</p><p>For the reasons stated in <i>Veraso Med. Supply Corp., as Assignee of Greer Foster Salvanita v MVAIC</i> (___ Misc 3d ___, 2019 NY Slip Op _____ [appeal No. 2016-1629 K C], decided herewith), the order is reversed and defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.</p><p>PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SIEGAL, JJ., concur.</p><br>ENTER:<br>Paul Kenny<br>Chief Clerk<br>Decision Date: March 08, 2019<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5133 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.5133

                       One Hundred Eighth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
           the twentieth day of January, two thousand and four

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
  11110 Sunset Hills Road in Reston, Virginia, as the ``Martha Pennino 
                         Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The facility of the United States Postal Service located at 11110 
Sunset Hills Road in Reston, Virginia, shall be known and designated as 
the ``Martha Pennino Post Office Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the facility referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Martha Pennino Post Office 
Building''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```