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

CERTIFICATION OFCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350)

Pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350), the undersigned, RavivZoller, Chief Executive Officer of Ness Technologies, Inc., a Delawarecorporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to his knowledge, that:

The QuarterlyReport on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2006of the Company (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of section13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| Date:  | May 9, 2006 | /s/ RAVIV  ZOLLER       |
|--------|------------------|-------------------------|
|   |             | Raviv Zoller            |
|   |             | Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hayes JONES, Jr., a.k.a. Pete, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-10826

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Nov. 15, 2010.

Steven E. Butler, Deborah A. Griffin, Eugene Seidel, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, Daryl Alsabrook Atchison, Donna Barrow Dobbins, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Mobile, AL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Elsie Mae Miller, Carlos Alfredo Williams, Federal Defenders Organization, Inc., Mobile, AL, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before HULL, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Elsie Mae Miller, appointed counsel for Hayes Jones, Jr., filed a motion to withdraw on appeal supported by a brief prepared pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Jones’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Report of CoConnect, Inc., a Nevada corporation, (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Brad M. Bingham, Esq., Interim Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, certify the following pursuant to Section 18, U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002:





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/ Brad M. Bingham, Esq.


Brad M. Bingham, Esq.


Interim Principal Accounting





May 11, 2011
EX-35 (c)
(logo) WELLS FARGO

Corporate Trust Services
MAC N2702-011
9062 Old Annapolis Road
Columbia, MD 21045
410 884-2000
410 715-2380 Fax

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.




March 12, 2007


Ace Securities Corporation
AMACAR GROUP
6525 Morrison Boulevard, Suite 318
Charlotte, NC 2821l


RE: Annual Statement As To Compliance for ACE Securities Corp. Home Equity Loan
    Trust, Series 2006-ASAP2.

Per Section 4.15 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as of 3/1/2006,
the undersigned Officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., (Securities Administrator),
hereby certifies the following for the 2006 calendar year or portion thereof:


(a)  A review of such party's activities during the preceding calendar year or
     portion thereof and of such party's performance under this Agreement, or
     such other applicable agreement in the case of an Additional Servicer or
     Servicing Function Participant, has been made under such officer's
     supervision.

(b)  To the best of such Officer's knowledge, based on such review, such party
     has fulfilled all its obligations under this Agreement, or such other
     applicable agreement in the case of an Additional Servicer or Servicing
     Function Participant, in all material respects throughout such year or
     portion thereof, or, if there has been a failure to fulfill any such
     obligation in any material respect, specifying each such failure known to
     such officer and the nature and status thereof.

(c)  Notwithstanding anything herein to contrary (and noting that, to the
     extent of any inconsistency, any and all other statements, certifications
     or assertions herein are subject to the following): instances of
     noncompliance related to the subject transaction for the applicable
     reporting period are identified on Schedule A hereto.



Certified By:
/s/ Kristen Ann Cronin
Kristen Ann Cronin, Vice President

Certified By:
/s/ Gordon Johnson
Gordon Johnson, Assistant Secretary


(page)


Schedule A


Payment/Distribution Calculation Errors

During the reporting period, certain errors were made in connection with the
calculation of payments/distributions on the securities. To the best of the
signing officer's knowledge, each such error, which may or may not have been
material, has been identified and remedied and any related corrective action
has been disclosed in a report previously filed with the SEC in respect of the
reporting period.


Reporting Errors

During the reporting period, one or more of the monthly investor reports
contained certain types of errors in regard to the calculation and or the
reporting of delinquencies for the pool assets. To the best of the signing
officer's knowledge, each such error, which may or may not have been material,
has been identified and remedied and any related corrective action has been
disclosed in a report previously filed with the SEC in respect of the reporting
period.
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 10, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-40757

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ROGELIO IVAN MEJIA-CUELLAR,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. B-02-CR-755-1

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

Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

 Rogelio Ivan Mejia-Cuellar appeals the sentence imposed

following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United

States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 

Mejia-Cuellar complains that his sentence was improperly enhanced

pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) based on a prior conviction. 

Mejia-Cuellar contends 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) is unconstitutional. 

Mejia-Cuellar thus contends that his sentence should not exceed
No. 03-40757

-2-

the maximum terms of imprisonment and supervised release

prescribed in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). 

In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235

(1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of

separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing

provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. 

Mejia-Cuellar acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres, but asserts that the decision has been cast

into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). 

He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres

“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule

it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks

that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. 

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
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 Baynon International Corp.
(the "Company") on amendment 1 to Form 10-Q for the six months ended
June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Pasquale Catizone, 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 result of
operations of the Company.

/s/Pasquale Catizone
-----------------------------
Pasquale Catizone
Chief Executive Officer

September 29, 2009


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 amended Quarterly Report of Baynon International
Corp. (the "Company") on amendment 1 to Form 10-Q for the six months
ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Daniel Generelli,
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 result of
operations of the Company.

/s/Daniel Generelli
-----------------------------
Daniel Generelli
Chief Financial Officer

September 29 , 2009
Exhibit 4.5


 


 










    


    


    

 


The following abbreviations, when
used in the inscription on the face of this certificate, shall be construed as though they were written out in full according to applicable
laws or regulations:


 


	TEN COM	 – as tenants in common	UNIF
GIFT MIN ACT – _________ Custodian ____________
	TEN ENT	 – as tenants by the entireties	                                            (Cust)                             (Minor)
	IT TEN	 – as joint tenants with right
of 

survivorship and not as tenants 

in
common	 

                                          under Uniform Gifts to Minors 
 Act _______________
 (State)

	TTEE	 – trustee under Agreement dated____________	 






 


Additional abbreviations may also
be used though not in the above list.


 


For value received,_______________hereby sell,
assign and transfer unto


 


PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY
OR OTHER

    IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE


 


	 	 

                           







 


 





 



PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEWRITE
NAME AND ADDRESS INCLUDING POSTAL ZIP CODE OF ASSIGNEE.


 


 





 



 


 





 



 


                                                                         Shares of common stock represented by this certificate and do hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint
                                                              


 





 



attorney, to transfer the
said share on the books of the within-named corporation with full power of substitution in the premises.


 


	DATED	 	 	
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	NOTICE:The
signature to this assignment must correspond with the name as written upon the face of the certificate in every particular without alteration
or enlargement or any change whatever.



 








SIGNATURE GUARANTEED:





 


	 	 
	THE
SIGNATURE(S) SHOULD BE GUARANTEED BY AN ELIGIBLE GUARANTOR INSTITUTION, (BANKS, STOCKBROKERS, SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS AND
CREDIT UNIONS WITH MEMBERSHIP IN AN APPROVED SIGNATURE GUARANTEE MEDALLION PROGRAM), PURSUANT TO S.E.C. RULE 17Ad-15.
Document

EXHIBIT 10.2

Performance Guarantee Confirmation
Reference is made to a Performance Guarantee dated as of December 16, 2014 made by the undersigned in favour of the Purchaser (the “Performance Guarantee”).  The undersigned acknowledges and confirms that the performance guarantee remains in full force and effect notwithstanding the entering into of this Tenth Amending Agreement   
Dated as of the 2nd day of May, 2022.


												
			WINTRUST FINANCIAL CORPORATION
	By:	/s/David A. Dykstra
		Name:    David A. Dykstra
		Title:    Vice Chairman, COO
		
	By:	/s/Kathleen M. Boege
		Name:    Kathleen M. Boege
		Title:    EVP, General Counsel & Secretary
* 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 December 10, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-40757 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ROGELIO IVAN MEJIA-CUELLAR, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. B-02-CR-755-1

-------------------- Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Rogelio Ivan Mejia-Cuellar appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Mejia-Cuellar complains that his sentence was improperly enhanced pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) based on a prior conviction. Mejia-Cuellar contends 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) is unconstitutional. Mejia-Cuellar thus contends that his sentence should not exceedNo. 03-40757 -2- the maximum terms of imprisonment and supervised release prescribed in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).
In Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. Mejia-Cuellar acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres , but asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres
. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit , 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED. The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
#### Daniel TEBOH, Petitioner v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 12-60504

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 22, 2013.

Jesus A. Macias, Houston, TX, for Petitioner.

Brendan Paul Hogan, Esq., Catherine Bye, Esq., Trial Attorney, Tangerlia Cox, Thankful Townsend Vanderstar, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Daniel Teboh, a native and citizen of Cameroon, has filed a petition for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). In affirming the denial of asylum, the BIA concluded that the immigration judge (IJ) did not err in finding that Teboh was not credible as a witness and that the IJ was reasonable in expecting Teboh to corroborate the factual bases for his claim with statements from his immediate family members in Cameroon.

Teboh challenges those conclusions, asserting that he testified consistently about the facts regarding his persecution and that his testimony was sufficiently corroborated. Teboh also asserts that the IJ made irrational assumptions about his ability to gather documents from family members in Cameroon and that the BIA erred in requiring specific corroborating evi*408dence. The BIA’s decision to uphold the IJ’s adverse credibility determination is reviewed under the substantial evidence standard. *See Orellana-Monson v. Holder,*685 F.3d 511, 518 (5th Cir.2012).

While Teboh discusses the parts of his testimony that were consistent, he does not specifically address any of the numerous inconsistencies cited by the IJ and BIA. “[A]n IJ may rely on *any*inconsistency or omission in making an adverse credibility determination as long as the totality of the circumstances establishes that an asylum applicant is not credible.” *Wang v. Holder,*569 F.3d 531, 538 (5th Cir.2009) (emphasis in original) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); *see*§ 1158(b)(l)(B)(iii). Teboh has not shown that the evidence compels the conclusion that he was a credible witness. *See Dayo v. Holder,*687 F.3d 653, 657-58 (5th Cir. 2012). Additionally, the BIA did not err regarding its determination that Teboh failed to adequately support his testimony with corroborating evidence. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(l)(B)(ii). Accordingly, Teboh has not shown that the BIA erred in affirming the denial of his application for asylum.

Teboh did not present any argument in the BIA challenging the denial of his claims for withholding or removal and relief under the CAT, and we therefore lack jurisdiction to consider such challenges now. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); *Claudio v. Holder,*601 F.3d 316, 318-19 (5th Cir. 2010).

The petition for review is DENIED.

*

 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.
* 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 June 22, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-51222 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus SABINO MEZA-CARO, also known as Sabino Meza-Cano, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:04-CR-302-ALL

-------------------- Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Sabino Meza-Caro raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 4.22
Shanghai Jiucheng Information Technology Co., Ltd. Equity 
Transfer Agreement
This Agreement is entered into by the parties below in the meeting room on December 10, 2021.
Transferor: Lin Zhimin (hereinafter referred to as Party A) ID number: * * *
Transferee: Wang Qi (hereinafter referred to as Party B) ID number: * * *
Shanghai Jiucheng Information Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Target Company”) has a registered capital of RMB23 million and Lin Zhimin contributed RMB8,280,000, accounting for 36%. According to relevant laws and regulations, after friendly negotiation between the parties to this agreement, the following terms have been reached:
Article 1 Equity Transfer and Price
	1.
	Party A transfers the 36% equity of the Target Company to Party B at a price of RMB0.00.


	2.
	Other rights attached to the equity are transferred with the transfer of the equity.


Article 2 Commitments and Guarantees
Party A guarantees that the equity transferred to Party B in Article 1 is legally owned by Party A, and Party A has full and effective disposal rights. Party A further guarantees that the equity transferred does not have any pledge or other security rights and is not subject to recourse by any third party.
Article 3 Liability for Breach of Contract
Party A and Party B breach the contract, they will pay the non-breaching party a penalty of RMB10,000.00.
Article 4 Jurisdiction
This agreement is bound by the applicable laws of the People’s Republic of China.
Any disputes arising out of or in connection with this agreement shall be settled through friendly negotiation by both parties. If the negotiation fails, it shall be submitted to the Shanghai Arbitration Commission for arbitration.
Article 5 Others
1.This agreement is executed in four copies, each party shall hold one copy, and the Target Company shall hold two copies for registry with the authority.
	2.
	This agreement will take effect upon signatures of both parties.


( No text below )
(signature page is left blank intentionally)
​
	Transferor Signature
	/s/ LIN ZHIMIN
	​
	Transferee Signature
	/s/ WANG QI
	​



​
	​
	December 10, 2021



​
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of notice required under 39 U.S.C. 3642(d)(1):*                         November 8, 2017.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on November 3, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, & First-Class Package Service Contract 25 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2018-20, CP2018-42.                

Elizabeth A. Reed,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2017-24342 Filed 11-7-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 7710-12-P