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 Altair Nanotechnologies Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Guohua Sun, 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 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.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------







|/s/ Guohua Sun                     
|-----------------------------------
|Guohua Sun, Chief Executive Officer
|November 15, 2016
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2741 

To amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities 

Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to participate in the 

City of Hermiston, Oregon, water recycling and reuse project, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 4, 2009 

Mr. WALDEN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater 

Study and Facilities Act to authorize the Secretary of 

the Interior to participate in the City of Hermiston, 

Oregon, water recycling and reuse project, and for other 

purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PROJECT AUTHORIZATION. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Reclamation Wastewater and 

5 Groundwater Study and Facilities Act (Public Law 102– 

6 575, title XVI; 43 U.S.C. 390h et seq.) is amended by 

7 inserting after section 16ll the following: 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2741 IH

1 ‘‘SEC. 16ll. CITY OF HERMISTON, OREGON, WATER RECY2 CLING AND REUSE PROJECT. 

3 ‘‘(a) AUTHORIZATION.—The Secretary, in coopera4 tion with the City of Hermiston, Oregon, is authorized to 

5 participate in the design, planning, and construction of 

6 permanent facilities to reclaim and reuse water in the City 

7 of Hermiston, Oregon. 

8 ‘‘(b) COST SHARE.—The Federal share of the costs 

9 of the project described in subsection (a) shall not exceed 

10 25 percent of the total cost. 

11 ‘‘(c) LIMITATION.—The Secretary shall not provide 

12 funds for the operation and maintenance of the project 

13 described in subsection (a).’’. 

14 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

15 in section 2 of the Reclamation Projects Authorization and 

16 Adjustment Act of 1992 is amended by inserting after the 

17 item relating to section 16ll the following: 

‘‘Sec. 16ll. City of Hermiston, Oregon, water recycling and reuse project.’’. 

Æ 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
Exhibit 4.1


 


THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON


NEW YORK’S FIRST BANK-FOUNDED 1784 BY ALEXANDER HAMILTON


 


 


2 HANSON PLACE, 12TH FLOOR, BROOKLYN,
N.Y. 11217


 


 


 


December 2, 2014


 


Hennion & Walsh, Inc.


2001 Route 46, Waterview Plaza


Parsippany, New Jersey 07054


 


Smart Trust, Zacks Diversified Equity &
Corporate Bond Trust, Series 7


Dear Sirs:


The Bank of New York
Mellon is acting as trustee for Smart Trust, Zacks Diversified Equity & Corporate Bond Trust, Series 7 set forth above (the
“Trust”). We enclosed a list of the Securities to be deposited in the Trust on the date hereof. The prices indicated
therein reflect our evaluation of such Securities as of close of business on December 1, 2014, in accordance with the valuation
method set forth in the Trust Indenture and Agreement. We consent to the reference to The Bank of New York Mellon as the party
performing the evaluations of the Trust Securities in the Registration Statement (No. 333-199479) filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission with respect to the registration of the sale of the Trust Units and to the filing of this consent as an exhibit
thereto.


 


 


Very truly yours,


 


/s/ GERARDO CIPRIANO_______________ 


Gerardo Cipriano


Vice President
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of SRS Labs, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the quarter ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Thomas C.K. Yuen, ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that, to his knowledge:

 

1.                                       TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.                                       Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| Date: August 7, 2008 |                     |                  |
|---------------------------|--------------------------|-----------------------|
|                      | By:                      | /s/  Thomas C.K. Yuen |
|                      | Thomas  C.K. Yuen        |                  |
|                      | Chief  Executive Officer |                  |
|                           |                          |                       |  |

 

----
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bernard Donnell SHERILL, a/k/a Nard, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-7030.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 31, 2011.

Decided: April 4, 2011.

Noell Peter Tin, Tin, Fulton, Walker & Owen, PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Bernard Donnell Sherill appeals the district court’s order granting his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006) motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *United States v. Sherill,*No. 3:95-cr-00005-FDW-8 (W.D.N.C. May 22, 2009). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
#### Luella Perrotta et al., Appellants, v Mustafa Jamal, Defendant, and Leemilt’s Petroleum, Inc., et al., Respondents.

[666 NYS2d 436]

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Hillery, J.), dated October 10, 1996, which granted the motion of the defendants Leemilt’s Petroleum, Inc. and Getty Petroleum Corp. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff Luella Perrotta was allegedly injured when she *358tripped and fell on uneven pavement at a gas station. Considering all the facts and circumstances of this case, including the dimensions, characteristics, and location of the alleged defect, the Supreme Court properly granted the respondents’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint *(see, Trincere v County of Suffolk,*90 NY2d 976; *Guerrieri v Summa,*193 AD2d 647). Miller, J. P., Ritter, Altman and Krausman, JJ., concur.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

ALEXANDER GIL,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D18-1706

[November 7, 2019]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Martin S. Fein, Judge; L.T. Case No. 17004907CF10A.

Alexander Gil, Miami, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee and Jessenia J. 

Concepcion, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

TAYLOR, MAY and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 192 (Thursday, October 5, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 46519]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-21427]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 731-TA-1185 (Review)]


Steel Nails From the United Arab Emirates

Determination

    On the basis of the record \1\ developed in the subject five-year 
review, the United States International Trade Commission 
(``Commission'') determines, pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (``the 
Act''), that revocation of the antidumping duty order on steel nails 
from the United Arab Emirates would be likely to lead to continuation 
or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States 
within a reasonably foreseeable time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    The Commission, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 
1675(c)), instituted this review on April 3, 2017 (82 FR 16229) and 
determined on July 7, 2017 that it would conduct an expedited review 
(82 FR 37112, August 8, 2017).
    The Commission made this determination pursuant to section 751(c) 
of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)). It completed and filed its 
determination in this review on September 29, 2017. The views of the 
Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4729 (September 2017), 
entitled Steel Nails from the United Arab Emirates: Investigation No. 
731-TA-1185 (Review).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: September 29, 2017.
Lisa R. Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2017-21427 Filed 10-4-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
Exhibit 32.2

 

 

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

 

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

 

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

 

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

 

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Altair Nanotechnologies Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Karen Werner, Interim Chief Financial 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 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.
**EXHIBIT
      32**





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
      SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





We,
      Don
      H. Barden, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, and Jon S. Bennett,
      Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of The Majestic Star Casino, LLC,
      The
      Majestic Star Casino Capital Corp., and Majestic Star Casino Capital Corp.
      II,
      (collectively, the "Registrant") certify pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:





(1)
            The
                Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Registrant for the quarter
                ended September 30, 2007 (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
                Registrant.





Dated: November
      14, 2007





*/s/
      Don H. Barden*


Don
      H.
      Barden


Chairman,
      President and Chief Executive Officer


The
      Majestic Star Casino, LLC


The
      Majestic Star Casino Capital Corp. and


Majestic
      Star Casino Capital Corp. II





*/s/
      Jon S. Bennett*


Jon
      S.
      Bennett


Vice
      President and Chief Financial Officer


The
      Majestic Star Casino, LLC


The
      Majestic Star Casino Capital Corp. and


Majestic
      Star Casino Capital Corp. II
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 194 (Tuesday, October 10, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 47054]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-21705]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: 10:00 a.m. on Wednesday, October 11, 2017.

PLACE: Auditorium, Room L-002.

STATUS: This meeting will be open to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The Commission will consider whether to 
propose amendments based on the recommendations in the staff's Report 
on Modernization and Simplification of Regulation S-K, as required by 
Section 72003 of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act, and 
to modernize and simplify certain disclosure requirements in Regulation 
S-K and related rules and forms. The Commission also will consider 
certain parallel amendments to investment company and investment 
adviser rules and forms.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: For further information and to 
ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed; 
please contact Brent J. Fields from the Office of the Secretary at 
(202) 551-5400.

    Dated: October 4, 2017.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-21705 Filed 10-5-17; 11:15 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
##### 



Exhibit 32.2
 Certification of Chief Financial Officer
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(Subsection (a) and (b) of Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code)
  (a)
    
    the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter and six months
ended June 30, 2005 (the Report) of the Company fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and(b)
    
    information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.
  /s/ Charles R. WaldronCharles R. WaldronSenior Vice President, Chief FinancialOfficer and Treasurer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

MAURICE DREW,

Defendant Below,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF DELAWARE,

Plaintiff Below,

Appellee.

§

§ No. 167, 2018

§

§ Court Below—Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware

§ 

§ ID. No. N0510011603

§ 

§ 

§ 

§

Submitted: September 4, 2018

Decided: September 14, 2018

O R D E R

It appears to the Court that, on August 16, 2018, the Chief Deputy Clerk 

issued a notice to the appellant to show cause why his appeal should not be 

dismissed for his failure to file his opening brief and appendix. The appellant 

failed to file a response within the ten-day time period; therefore, dismissal of 

this action is deemed to be unopposed.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, under Supreme 

Court Rules 3(b) and 29(b), that the appeal is DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ James T. Vaughn, Jr.

 Justice
#### Francoise Peter-MacIntyre, Appellant, v Lynch International, Inc., Respondent.

[862 NYS2d 351]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward H. Lehner, J.), entered June 5, 2007, which, insofar as appealed from, granted defendant’s motion to vacate its default in opposing a prior motion by plaintiff to reargue a prior order vacating defendant’s default in appearance, upon condition that defendant pay plaintiff $250, and, upon vacatur, sub silencio denied plaintiff’s prior motion to reargue, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

*425In support of defendant’s motion to vacate its default in opposing plaintiff’s January 10, 2007 motion to reargue the December 5, 2006 order vacating defendant’s default in appearance, defendant’s attorney represented that she did not know about the January 10, 2007 motion, purportedly served by mail on January 10, 2007, or the notice of entry of the January 30, 2007 order granting that motion, purportedly served by mail on February 6, 2007, until February 12, 2007, when she happened to call plaintiff’s attorney about the case. On the merits of plaintiffs prior motion to reargue, defendant’s attorney argued that the motion merely repeated the arguments that plaintiff had previously made unsuccessfully in opposing vacatur of defendant’s default in appearance, and thus would not have been granted had there been opposition. In opposition, plaintiffs attorney argued that affidavits of service by mail raised a presumption of receipt that defendant’s attorney’s allegations of nonreceipt failed to rebut. We reject plaintiffs argument because the January 11, 2007 “Affirmation of Service” on which she relies as proof of the alleged January 10, 2006 service of the January 10, 2007 motion to reargue is defective. That affirmation states that “I caused a copy of plaintiffs motion for leave to reargue to be sent by first class mail to [defendant’s attorney] at the following address.” Such affirmation is defective because it does not specifically state that the affiant, who is plaintiffs attorney, himself mailed the motion *(Metzger v Esseks,*168 AD2d 287, 287 [1990]; *Gigante v Arbucci,*34 AD3d 425, 425 [2006]). Plaintiffs argument that defendant’s original motion to vacate its default in appearance should have been denied for lack of a reasonable excuse and meritorious defense is not properly before the Court since plaintiff did not appeal the December 5, 2006 order; in any event, it appears that the default was properly vacated. Concur—Lippman, P.J., Tom, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-11111

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JASON WAYNE CHILDS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:10-CR-75-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, CLEMENT, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jason Wayne Childs

has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th

Cir. 2011). Childs has filed a response. The record is insufficiently developed

to allow consideration at this time of Childs’s claim of ineffective assistance of

counsel; such a claim generally “cannot be resolved on direct appeal when the

claim has not been raised before the district court since no opportunity existed

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 16, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 10-11111 Document: 00511573804 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/16/2011
No. 10-11111

to develop the record on the merits of the allegations.” United States v.

Cantwell, 470 F.3d 1087, 1091 (5th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted). We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of

the record reflected therein, as well as Childs’s response. We concur with

counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate

review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is

excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 

See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

2

Case: 10-11111 Document: 00511573804 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/16/2011
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Yolanda Roker, Appellant.

[859 NYS2d 687]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Marrus, J.), rendered June 8, 2006, convicting her of murder in the second degree and robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

On July 25, 2005 the defendant and two accomplices formulated a plan to steal stereo equipment from the decedent’s apartment, to which the defendant had access. That evening the defendant, who was inside the apartment, unlocked the apartment door, as planned. Her accomplices, believing that the decedent was asleep in his bedroom, then entered the apartment. However, the decedent, who was awake, came out of his bedroom and began struggling with the defendant’s accomplices. The decedent was asphyxiated and killed during that struggle.

*539At trial, the defendant, who testified on her own behalf, raised the affirmative defense to felony murder *(see*Penal Law § 125.25 [3]). The affirmative defense, about which the jury was instructed, requires a defendant to establish, inter alia, that he or she “[h]ad no reasonable ground to believe that any other participant [in the underlying crime] intended to engage in conduct likely to result in death or serious physical injury” (Penal Law § 125.25 [3] [d]; *see also*Penal Law § 25.00 [2]). Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the jury was justified in rejecting the affirmative defense, since, inter alia, her exculpatory statements changed over time, making them less credible *(see People v Gonzales,*48 AD3d 698 [2008]; *People v Ocasio,*12 AD3d 621, 622 [2004]; *People v Jackson,*208 AD2d 862, 863 [1994]). Furthermore, on cross-examination, she acknowledged that she was aware that her accomplices might harm the decedent during the robbery *(see People v Ocasio,*12 AD3d at 622; *cf. People v Adams,*135 AD2d 914, 915 [1987]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive *(see People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Rivera, J.P, Covello, Angiolillo and McCarthy, JJ., concur.