alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>


                                                                    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 on Form 10-Q of American Oriental
Bioengineering, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarter ended September 30, 2006,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), the undersigned officer of the Company certifies, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to his knowledge:

         i.       the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
                  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

/s/ Shujun Liu
---------------------------------------
Shujun Liu
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
November 14, 2006
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

DURAMED PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

WATSON LABORATORIES, INC., 

Defendant-Appellee. 

____________________ 

2011-1438 

______________________

 

 Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

District of Nevada in No. 08-CV-0116, Judge Larry R. Hicks. 

______________________ 

JUDGMENT 

______________________ 

VERNON M. WINTERS, Greenberg Traurig, LLP, of San 

Francisco, California, argued for plaintiff-appellant. With him 

on the brief was CHARANJIT BRAHMA, of Washington, DC. 

MARK T. JANSEN, Kilpatrick Townsend and Stockton, LLP, 

of San Francisco, California, argued for defendant-appellee. 

With him on the brief were GIA L. CINCONE; and CEDRIC C. Y.

TAN and KRISTIN M. COOKLIN, of Washington, DC. 

______________________ 
THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (LOURIE, LINN, and PROST, Circuit Judges). 

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36. 

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

 November 10, 2011 /s/ Jan Horbaly

 Date Jan Horbaly 

 Clerk
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Carl Savoy","author_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/author\/csavoy\/","title":"Ocean Transportation Intermediary License Revocations & Surrenders February 28, 2022","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"2F0fCRxOGr\"><a href=\"\/oti\/ocean-transportation-intermediary-license-revocations-surrenders-february-28-2022\/\">Ocean Transportation Intermediary License Revocations & Surrenders February 28, 2022<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/oti\/ocean-transportation-intermediary-license-revocations-surrenders-february-28-2022\/embed\/#?secret=2F0fCRxOGr\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Ocean Transportation Intermediary License Revocations & Surrenders February 28, 2022” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"2F0fCRxOGr\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(c,l){\"use strict\";var e=!1,o=!1;if(l.querySelector)if(c.addEventListener)e=!0;if(c.wp=c.wp||{},c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage);else if(c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if(!t);else if(!(t.secret||t.message||t.value));else if(\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret));else{for(var r,s,a,i=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),n=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=0;o<n.length;o++)n[o].style.display=\"none\";for(o=0;o<i.length;o++)if(r=i[o],e.source!==r.contentWindow);else{if(r.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message){if(1e3<(s=parseInt(t.value,10)))s=1e3;else if(~~s<200)s=200;r.height=s}if(\"link\"===t.message)if(s=l.createElement(\"a\"),a=l.createElement(\"a\"),s.href=r.getAttribute(\"src\"),a.href=t.value,a.host===s.host)if(l.activeElement===r)c.top.location.href=t.value}}},e)c.addEventListener(\"message\",c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",t,!1),c.addEventListener(\"load\",t,!1);function t(){if(o);else{o=!0;for(var e,t,r,s=-1!==navigator.appVersion.indexOf(\"MSIE 10\"),a=!!navigator.userAgent.match(\/Trident.*rv:11\\.\/),i=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),n=0;n<i.length;n++){if(!(r=(t=i[n]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\")))r=Math.random().toString(36).substr(2,10),t.src+=\"#?secret=\"+r,t.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",r);if(s||a)(e=t.cloneNode(!0)).removeAttribute(\"security\"),t.parentNode.replaceChild(e,t);t.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:r},\"*\")}}}}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Catie-Megan Moran","author_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/author\/cmoranfmc-gov\/","title":"Revocations and Surrenders – November 21, 2014","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"0MCuWq5igJ\"><a href=\"\/oti\/revocations-and-surrenders-november-21-2014\/\">Revocations and Surrenders – November 21, 2014<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/oti\/revocations-and-surrenders-november-21-2014\/embed\/#?secret=0MCuWq5igJ\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Revocations and Surrenders – November 21, 2014” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"0MCuWq5igJ\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(c,l){\"use strict\";var e=!1,o=!1;if(l.querySelector)if(c.addEventListener)e=!0;if(c.wp=c.wp||{},c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage);else if(c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if(!t);else if(!(t.secret||t.message||t.value));else if(\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret));else{for(var r,s,a,i=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),n=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=0;o<n.length;o++)n[o].style.display=\"none\";for(o=0;o<i.length;o++)if(r=i[o],e.source!==r.contentWindow);else{if(r.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message){if(1e3<(s=parseInt(t.value,10)))s=1e3;else if(~~s<200)s=200;r.height=s}if(\"link\"===t.message)if(s=l.createElement(\"a\"),a=l.createElement(\"a\"),s.href=r.getAttribute(\"src\"),a.href=t.value,a.host===s.host)if(l.activeElement===r)c.top.location.href=t.value}}},e)c.addEventListener(\"message\",c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",t,!1),c.addEventListener(\"load\",t,!1);function t(){if(o);else{o=!0;for(var e,t,r,s=-1!==navigator.appVersion.indexOf(\"MSIE 10\"),a=!!navigator.userAgent.match(\/Trident.*rv:11\\.\/),i=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),n=0;n<i.length;n++){if(!(r=(t=i[n]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\")))r=Math.random().toString(36).substr(2,10),t.src+=\"#?secret=\"+r,t.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",r);if(s||a)(e=t.cloneNode(!0)).removeAttribute(\"security\"),t.parentNode.replaceChild(e,t);t.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:r},\"*\")}}}}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
Exhibit 5.3

CONSENT OF HATCH LTD.

Reference is made to the Annual Report on Form 40-F for the year ended
December 31, 2006 (the Annual Report) of New Gold Inc. (the Company), filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

We hereby consent to the references to our name under the heading General Development of the Business  Business of New Gold  Three Year History in the Companys Annual Information Form and
to all other references to our name included or incorporated by reference in the Annual Report.



|           |  |                          |  | 
|---------- |  | ------------------------ |  | 
|HATCH LTD. |  |                         
|           |  |                         
|By:        |  | /s/    Ken Thomas        |  | 
|Name:      |  | Ken Thomas               |  | 
|Title:     |  | Global Managing Director |  | 

April 2, 2007
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the Flowers
Industries, Inc. Consolidated Statement of Income for the twelve weeks ended
September 20, 1997 and the Flowers Industries, Inc. Consolidated Balance Sheet
at September 20, 1997 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-27-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-29-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-20-1997
<CASH>                                           7,991
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  115,439
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    128,653
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               275,058
<PP&E>                                         761,540
<DEPRECIATION>                                 310,052
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 910,700
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          231,700
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        55,398
<OTHER-SE>                                     289,932
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   910,700
<SALES>                                        308,387
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               310,063
<CGS>                                          165,476
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  294,699
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,308
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 15,364
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,992
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    14,529
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.17
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**Certification**

 

I, Janet Mathews, ChiefFinancial Officer of Gaiam, Inc., certify that:

 

1.     I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Gaiam,Inc.;

 

2.     Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the periods covered by this report;

 

3.     Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.     The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand have:

 

(a)                      Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

(b)                     Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

(c)                      Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.     The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofthe registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

(a)                      Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

 

(b)                     Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

 
| Date:  November 21, 2003                |   |
|-----------------------------------------|--------|
| /s/ Janet  Mathews                      |   |   |
| Janet  Mathews, Chief Financial Officer |   |
|                                         |        |  |

 

1

----
#### Douglas NALLS, settlor and successor of the Douglas E. Nalls irrevocable trust Number 2 dated November 30, 1995, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTRYWIDE HOME SERVICES, LLC, d.b.a. Countrywide Home Mortgage Company, Ruthie Mae Curtis, trustee The Douglas E. Nalls Irrevocable Trust Number 2, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 08-10222

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

May 28, 2008.

Douglas Nalls, North Miami, FL, pro se.

*825Before BIRCH, HULL and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Douglas Nalls appeals *pro se*the district court’s *sua sponte*dismissal of his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. After review, we affirm.

A district court must have at least one of three types of subject matter jurisdiction to entertain an action: (1) jurisdiction pursuant to a statutory grant; (2) federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331; or (3) diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). *Baltin v. Alaron Trading Corp.,*128 F.3d 1466, 1469 (11th Cir.1997). The district court “should inquire into whether it has subject matter jurisdiction at the earliest possible stage in the proceedings” and is obligated to do so *“sua sponte*whenever [subject matter jurisdiction] may be lacking.” *Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co.,*168 F.3d 405, 410 (11th Cir.1999).1 If a district court determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, it “is powerless to continue” and must dismiss the complaint. *Id.*

Nalls’s *pro se*complaint alleges common law claims of breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty under Florida law. As Nalls concedes, there is no diversity jurisdiction under § 1332(a) because Nalls and the defendants are all citizens of Florida.

Furthermore, because Nalls’s complaint alleges only state law claims, there is no federal question jurisdiction under § 1331. Nalls’s contention that federal question jurisdiction exists pursuant to the Seventh Amendment, the Supremacy Clause and Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution is without merit. None of these constitutional provisions confers subject matter jurisdiction in and of themselves and Nalls’s complaint does not allege a violation of any of these constitutional provisions. Accordingly, the district court properly dismissed Nalls’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.2

AFFIRMED.

1

. We review *de novo*a district court's finding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. *Hall v. U.S. Dep't of Veterans Affairs,*85 F.3d 532, 533 (11th Cir.1996).

2

. We lack appellate jurisdiction to review the district court’s denial of Nalls’s motion for reconsideration because Nalls failed to include that ruling in his notice of appeal or in an amended notice of appeal. *See Osterneck v. E.T. Barwick Indus., Inc.,*825 F.2d 1521, 1528 (11th Cir.1987), aff’d, 489 U.S. 169, 109 S.Ct. 987, 103 L.Ed.2d 146 (1989); Fed.R.App. P. 3(c).
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Certification of CEO and CFO Pursuant to**

**18 U.S.C. Section 1350,**

**as Adopted Pursuant to**

**Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of CherokeeInternational Corporation (the “Company”) for the quarterly period endedJune 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the “Report”), Jeffrey M. Frank, as Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, and Van Holland, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, eachhereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of hisknowledge:

 

1.                                       TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities 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.

 

 
| /s/ Jeffrey M. Frank            |                                         |   |
|---------------------------------|----------------------------------------------|--------|
| Name:  Jeffrey M. Frank    |                                         |
| Title:                          | President and Chief Executive Officer        |   |
|                            | (Principal Executive Officer)                |   |
|                            |                                         |
| Date:  August 9, 2004 |                                         |
|                            |                                         |
|                            |                                         |
| /s/ Van Holland                 |                                         |   |
| Name:                           | Van Holland                                  |   |
| Title:                          | Chief Financial Officer                      |   |
|                            | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) |   |
|                            |                                         |
| Date:  August 9, 2004 |                                         |
|                                 |                                              |        |  |  |  |

 

A signed original of this written statement required bySection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided toCherokee International Corporation and will be retained by CherokeeInternational Corporation and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

----
Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service Quarterly FOIA Report

Fiscal Year 2022, Quarter Q4

1. Ten Oldest Pending Requests: 1

2. Ten Oldest Requests Closed: 1

3. Agency Component Abbreviations

Component 

Abbreviation Component Name

FMCS Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service

Agency / 

Component

Number of requests 

backlogged

Number of requests 

processed

Number of requests 

received

FMCS 0 10 13
Exhibit 32.0



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 HealthExtras, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the Report), the undersigned hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section.1350, as added by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



1. The Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the period covered by the Report.



|               |  |  |  |                                                    
|-------------- |  |  |  | ---------------------------------------------------
|               |  | 
|August 9, 2004 |  |  |  | /s/ David T. Blair                                 
|               |  |  |  | David T. Blair Chief Executive Officer and Director



|               |  |  |  |                                                                        
|-------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------
|               |  | 
|August 9, 2004 |  |  |  | /s/ Michael P. Donovan                                                 
|               |  |  |  | Michael P. Donovan Chief Financial Officer and Chief Accounting Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Barry HENDERSON, a/k/a Mook, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-6775.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 16, 2010.

Decided: Dec. 27, 2010.

Barry Henderson, Appellant Pro Se. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Kwame Jangha Manley, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Barry Henderson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2010) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a *776prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Henderson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*