alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 32**

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO

18U.S.C. § 1350,

ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

 

In connectionwith the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Seacoast Financial ServicesCorporation (the “Company”) for the quarter ended September 30, 2003, as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),each of the undersigned (Kevin G. Champagne, President and CEO), and (FrancisS. Mascianica, Jr., Treasurer, as Principal Financial and Accounting Officer),of the Company, certifies, to the best knowledge and belief of the signatory,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)   The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and

 

(2)   The information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ Kevin G.  Champagne                |                                                       | /s/ Francis  S. Mascianica, Jr. |   |
|----------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------|--------|
| Kevin G. Champagne                     | Francis S. Mascianica, Jr.                                 |
| President and Chief  Executive Officer | Treasurer, as Principal  Financial and Accounting  Officer |
|                                   |
|                                   |
| Date:  November 13, 2003          | Date:  November 13, 2003                              |

 

1

----
# C_2006249EN.01000802.xml

| 14.10.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 249/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.10.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 249/8

---

Order of the President of the First Chamber of the Court of 25 January 2006 — European Agency for Reconstruction (EAR) v Norbert Schmitt

(Case C-426/04 P) (1)

1

(2006/C 249/18)

Language of the case: French

Language of the case: French

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 300, 04.12.2004.

1

---
#### § 141.8 License period for reservation businesses.

A license to operate a reservation business may not be issued unless the applicant has a right to use the land on which the business is to be conducted. The license period shall correspond to the period of the lease held by the licensee. The license period in no event may exceed twenty-five (25) years.
#### ELLIS v. NORTHERN STAR CO.

No. 192PA89

Case below: 326 N.C. 219

Petition by defendants to rehear denied 5 April 1990.
# C_2014113EN.01003201.xml

| 15.4.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 113/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.4.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 113/32

---

Corrigendum to the List of central authorities nominated by the Member States to deal with the return of cultural objects unlawfully removed from a Member State and applying Article 3 of Directive 93/7/EEC

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 55 of 26 February 2014
  )

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 55 of 26 February 2014

2014/C 113/10

On page 10, the contact details of the following central authority of the Slovak Republic shall be added to the contacts details already mentioned in the list:

| ‘Slovak Republic | Ministerstvo kultúry SR |
| --- | --- |
| sekcia kultúrneho dedičstva |
| Nám. SNP 33 |
| 813 33 Bratislava 1 |
| SLOVENSKO/SLOVAKIA |
| Contact: Pavol Šimunič |
| Tel. +421 220482414 |
| Fax +421 220482476 |
| E-mail: skd@culture.gov.sk’ |

‘Slovak Republic

Ministerstvo kultúry SR

sekcia kultúrneho dedičstva

Nám. SNP 33

813 33 Bratislava 1

SLOVENSKO/SLOVAKIA

Contact: Pavol Šimunič

Tel. +421 220482414

Fax +421 220482476

E-mail: skd@culture.gov.sk’

---
# C_2006224EN.01003802.xml

| 16.9.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 224/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 224/38

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 July 2006 — Vitakraft-Werke Wührmann v OHIM — Johnson's Veterinary Products (VITACOAT)

(Case T-277/04) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark VITACOAT - Earlier national word marks VITAKRAFT - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2006/C 224/82)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Vitakraft-Werke Wührmann & Sohn GmbH & Co. KG (Bremen, Germany) (represented by: U. Sander, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Novais Gonçalves, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Johnson's Veterinary Products Ltd (Sutton Coldfield, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Edenborough, Barrister)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM, of 27 April 2004 (Case R 560/2003-1) regarding opposition proceedings between Vitakraft-Werke Wührmann & Sohn GmbH & Co. KG and Johnson's Veterinary Products Ltd

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the applicant to bear its own costs, and pay the costs incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and the intervener before the Court of First Instance. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the applicant to bear its own costs, and pay the costs incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and the intervener before the Court of First Instance.

---

(1)  OJ C 300, 4.12.2004.

1

---
### §8614. Apprehension of deserters and prisoners; operation of shore patrols

(a) The Secretary of the Navy may make such expenditures out of available appropriations as he considers necessary to—

(1) apprehend and deliver deserters, stragglers, and prisoners; and

(2) operate shore patrols.

(b) The Secretary, to the extent he considers proper, may delegate the authority conferred by this section to any person in the Department of the Navy, with or without the authority to make successive redelegations.

(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 445, §7214; renumbered §8614, Pub. L. 115–232, div. A, title VIII, §807(d)(1), Aug. 13, 2018, 132 Stat. 1836.)

| Revised section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 7214 | 34 U.S.C. 606. | Aug. 2, 1946, ch. 756, §22, 60 Stat. 856. |
| | 5 U.S.C. 421g(d). | Aug. 2, 1946, ch. 756, §40(d), 60 Stat. 858. |
| | 5 U.S.C. 412a. | Aug. 2, 1946, ch. 756, §39, 60 Stat. 858. |

In subsection (a) the word "naval" is omitted as surplusage.

In subsection (b) the words "except the authority to prescribe regulations" are omitted, since 34 U.S.C. 606 contains no authority for the Secretary of the Navy to prescribe regulations for the administration of that section.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2018—Pub. L. 115–232 renumbered section 7214 of this title as this section.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 2018 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 115–232 effective Feb. 1, 2019, with provision for the coordination of amendments and special rule for certain redesignations, see section 800 of Pub. L. 115–232, set out as a note preceding section 3001 of this title.
#### § 2.601 When must a decision-maker respond to a request to act?

A decision-maker receiving a request as specified in § 2.600 has 15 days from receiving the request to issue a written response. The response may be a decision, a procedural order that will further the decision-making process, or a written notice that a decision will be rendered by a date no later than 60 days from the date of the request.
---

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of SLM Student Loan Trust 2012-2 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);
 
 2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
 
 3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;
 
 4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer and administrator have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreement and administration agreement, as applicable, in all material respects; and
 
 5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K. In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated party: Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as indenture trustee.
 
  
 
  
 /s/ CHRISTIAN LOWN
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 8 (Wednesday, January 12, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2194-2195]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-411]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service


Open Meeting of the Area 6 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel (including the 
states of, Idaho, Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, 
Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming)

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Area 6 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be 
conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comment, 
ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal 
Revenue Service.

DATES: The meeting will be held Thursday, February 2, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Timothy Shepard at 1-888-912-1227 or 
206-220-6095.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 
10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory

[[Page 2195]]

Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Area 6 
Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held Thursday, February 2, 2011, at 1 
p.m. Pacific Time via telephone conference. The public is invited to 
make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due 
to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate must 
be made with Timothy Shepard. For more information, please contact Mr. 
Shepard at 1-888-912-1227 or 206-220-6095, or write TAP Office, 915 2nd 
Avenue, MS W-406, Seattle, WA 98174 or post comments to the Web site: 
http://www.improveirs.org.
    The agenda will include various IRS issues.

    Dated: January 5, 2011.
Shawn Collins,
Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.
[FR Doc. 2011-411 Filed 1-11-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
# C_2006183EN.01001301.xml

| 5.8.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 183/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 183/13

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4274 — Investindustrial/Stroili oro)

(2006/C 183/08)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 28 July 2006, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4274. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://ec.europa.eu/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4274. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://ec.europa.eu/eur-lex/lex)

---
# C_2014092EN.01003501.xml

| 29.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 92/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 92/35

---

Corrigendum to Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the TFEU — Cases where the Commission raises no objections

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 50 of 21 February 2014
  )

Official Journal of the European Union C 50 of 21 February 2014

2014/C 92/08

On page 24, the text referring to the State Aid No SA.37588 is cancelled and replaced by the following:

‘Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the TFEU

Cases where the Commission raises no objections

(Text with EEA relevance, except for products falling under Annex I of the Treaty)

| Date of adoption of the decision | 19.12.2013 |
| --- | --- |
| Aid number | SA.37588 (2013/N) |
| Member State | France |
| Region | — | — |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | Programmes pour l''installation et le développement des initiatives locales (PIDIL) |
| Legal basis | — | articles D. 343-34 et suivants du code rural et de la pêche maritime |

Date of adoption of the decision

19.12.2013

Aid number

SA.37588 (2013/N)

Member State

France

Region

—

—

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

Programmes pour l''installation et le développement des initiatives locales (PIDIL)

Legal basis

—

articles D. 343-34 et suivants du code rural et de la pêche maritime

| — | articles L. 1551-1 et suivants du code général des collectivités territoriales |
| --- | --- |

—

articles L. 1551-1 et suivants du code général des collectivités territoriales

Type of measure

Scheme

—

Objective

Other

Form of aid

Direct grant

Budget

Overall budget: EUR 12 (in millions)

Intensity

%

Duration (period)

1.1.2014 - 31.12.2015

Economic sectors

All economic sectors eligible to receive aid

Name and address of the granting authority

| ministère de l'agriculture, de l'agroalimentaire et de la forêt |
| --- |
| 3 rue Barbet de Jouy - 75349 Paris 07 SP |

ministère de l'agriculture, de l'agroalimentaire et de la forêt

3 rue Barbet de Jouy - 75349 Paris 07 SP

Other information

—

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm’

---
Exhibit 13.1/13.2



Certification by the Principal Executive Officer

and Principal Financial and Accounting Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002



In connection with the Annual
Report of JX Luxventure Limited (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2022 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Sun Lei, Chief Executive Officer and Interim Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



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



(2) The information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|Date: May 12,
    2023 |                                                                                                                                                     
|---------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                       |                                                                                                                                                     
|By:                    | /s/ Sun Lei                                                                                                                                         
|Name:                  | Sun Lei                                                                                                                                             
|Title:                 | Chief Executive Officer and
    Interim Chief Financial Officer
    (Principal Executive Officer and
    Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 423 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                     February 16, 2000.
    Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker 
may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 2366) to provide small businesses certain protections from litigation 
excesses and to limit the product liability of nonmanufacturer product sellers. 
The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. General debate shall be 
confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under 
the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for 
the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature 
of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the 
bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered 
as read. No amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 
shall be in order except those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules 
accompanying this resolution. Each amendment may be offered only in the order 
printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, 
shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the 
report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall 
not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division 
of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of 
order against the amendments printed in the report are waived. The Chairman of 
the Committee of the Whole may: (1) postpone until a time during further 
consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any 
amendment; and (2) reduce to five minutes the minimum time for electronic voting 
on any postponed question that follows another electronic vote without 
intervening business, provided that the minimum time for electronic voting on 
the first in any series of questions shall be 15 minutes. At the conclusion of 
consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the 
bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may 
demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of 
the Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion 
to recommit with or without instructions.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
#### Morris Sirkes, Respondent, v. Owen McCormack and Others, Appellants.

— Judgment of .the Municipal Court affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Woodward, Jenks, Hooker, Gaynor and Rich, JJ., concurred.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 01-4934

TAMMY ROSE DOVE,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham.

William L. Osteen, District Judge.

(CR-00-331)

Submitted: June 4, 2002

Decided: June 25, 2002

Before MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and

HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Urs Roland Gsteiger, HORTON & GSTEIGER, P.L.L.C., WinstonSalem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United

States Attorney, Robert M. Hamilton, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Tammy Rose Dove pleaded guilty to an indictment charging conspiracy to make, possess or utter forged securities in violation of 18

U.S.C.A. § 513 (West 2000). She received no term of imprisonment,

but instead was sentenced to a term of supervised release. Dove

admittedly violated the terms of her supervised release. At her revocation hearing, the district court departed from the guideline range of 3

to 9 months and sentenced Dove to 16 months imprisonment. The

court based its departure on verbally abusive remarks Dove directed

towards members of the Probation Office. 

We review a district court’s revocation of supervised release for

abuse of discretion. See United States v. Davis, 53 F.3d 638, 642-43

(4th Cir. 1995). The district court need only find a violation of a condition of supervised release by a preponderance of the evidence. See

18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(e)(3) (West 1994 & Supp. 2001). Moreover, if

the court has considered the relevant factors and the applicable policy

statements, it has the discretion to impose a sentence outside the

ranges set out in the sentencing guidelines. See Davis at 642-43. Dove

argues that she did not receive sufficient notice of the allegations that

she verbally abused probation officers prior to the supervised release

revocation hearing. Dove, however, cites no authority for the proposition that she was entitled to notice of all conduct the court might consider in imposing sentence following a concededly proper finding that

revocation was warranted. In any event, we note that the petition for

revocation filed by the Probation Office in fact described in detail the

conduct forming the basis for the court’s decision to depart from the

guideline range. 

Accordingly, we hold the district court did not abuse its discretion

in departing from the guideline range and sentencing Dove to sixteen

months imprisonment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the dis2 UNITED STATES v. DOVE
trict court. 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

UNITED STATES v. DOVE 3