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 accompanying Form 10-K of Glimcher Realty Trust (the
"Company") for the period ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael P.
Glimcher, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted
pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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


Date:  February 22, 2008                    /s/ Michael P. Glimcher
                                            ---------------------------------
                                            Michael P. Glimcher
                                            Chairman of the Board and Chief
                                            Executive Officer
                                            (Principal Executive Officer)


     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or
other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Glimcher Realty
Trust and will be retained by Glimcher Realty Trust and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 23.1



            Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
            --------------------------------------------------------


Glimcher Realty Trust
Columbus, Ohio

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-87538, 333-113910, 33-90730, 33-91084,
333-43317, 333-43319, 333-61339 and 333-115068), Form S-11 (No. 33-69740) and
Form S-8 (Nos. 33-94542, 333-10221, 333-84537 and 333-123557) of Glimcher Realty
Trust of our reports dated February 22, 2006 relating to the consolidated
financial statements, financial statement schedule and the effectiveness of
Glimcher Realty Trust's internal control over financial reporting, which appear
in this Form 10-K.


Chicago, Illinois                                      /s/ BDO Seidman, LLP
February 22, 2006
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-10008

(Summary Calendar)

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

SON NGO HUYNH,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

(USDC No. 3:95-CR-225-T)

- - - - - - - - - -

August 26, 1996

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Son Ngo Huynh appeals from the sentence imposed by the

district court following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy

to utter and possess counterfeit securities. Huynh argues that the

district court erred by increasing his offense level by two

pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c) for his role in the offense and, in

the alternative, that he received ineffective assistance of counsel

because his attorney failed to notice and understand the
2

significance of an error in the factual resume indicating that

Huynh had recruited three other participants. In his plea

agreement, however, Huynh waived his right to appeal his sentence.

See United States v. Portillo, 18 F.3d 290, 293 (5th Cir.), cert.

denied, 115 S. Ct. 244 (1994). Further, "[t]he general rule in

this circuit is that a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel

cannot be resolved on direct appeal when the claim has not been

raised before the district court since no opportunity existed to

develop the record on the merits of the allegations." United

States v. Higdon, 832 F.2d 312, 313-14 (5th Cir. 1987), cert.

denied, 484 U.S. 1075 (1988). Because the record was not fully

developed on this issue, the court declines to address the issue on

direct appeal. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is

affirmed.

AFFIRMED.
§ 156.8 Refusal of service; denial or withdrawal of service. ( a ) Service under this part will be refused if the conditions stated in §§ 156.5 and 156.6 are not met.
( b ) Service under this part may be withdrawn from, or denied to, any applicant by the Administrator, for such period as the Administrator may prescribe, when the Administrator is satisfied, after opportunity for hearing before a proper official has been accorded the applicant, that the applicant or other operator of the plant where service has been or would be furnished under the application, or the agent or employee of such applicant or operator within the scope of his employment, has persistently failed to give the inspector full and correct information with respect to the processing procedures, handling, and storage of animal products intended for certification or certified; or has given to any employee of the Department false information in connection with service under this part; or has altered or imitated any certificate, mark, or device provided for under this part; or has used any such certificate, mark, or device without authority from the Administrator, or any imitation of any such certificate, mark, or device, on or with respect to any animal products; or has knowingly and without promptly notifying the Administrator retained possession of any such device or imitation thereof or altered or imitation certificate or of any animal products marked with any such device without authority from the Administrator or marked with any imitation of such device; or has given or attempted to give, for any purpose whatsoever, any money, favor, or other thing of value, to any employee of the Department authorized to perform any function under this part; or has interfered with or obstructed, or attempted to interfere with or to obstruct, any employee of the Department in or with respect to the performance of his duties under this part by intimidation, threats, assaults, or any other improper means. The inspector assigned to any plant may suspend service at such plant for any of the reasons set forth in this paragraph, without hearing, and in that event shall report his actions to the Administrator, and the Administrator may continue such suspension or otherwise deny or suspend service at any plant for any of such reasons, without hearing, pending final disposal of the matter under this paragraph.
( c ) All final orders in any proceeding to deny or withdraw the service for any of the reasons set forth in paragraph (b) of this section (except orders required for good cause to be held confidential and not cited as precedents) shall be filed with the Hearing Clerk of the Department and be available to public inspection.
[23 FR 10111, Dec. 23, 1958, as amended at 57 FR 30899, July 13, 1992; 62 FR 19040, Apr. 18, 1997]
§ 9032.6 Matching payment period. *Matching payment period* means the period beginning January 1 of the calendar year in which a Presidential general election is held and may not exceed one of the following dates: ( a ) For a candidate seeking the nomination of a party which nominates its Presidential candidate at a national convention, the date on which the party nominates its candidate.
( b ) For a candidate seeking the nomination of a party which does not make its nomination at a national convention, the earlier of— ( 1 ) The date the party nominates its Presidential candidate, or
( 2 ) The last day of the last national convention held by a major party in the calendar year.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-01-2000
<CASH>                                          78,407
<SECURITIES>                                    12,803
<RECEIVABLES>                                   33,203
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (757)
<INVENTORY>                                     19,947
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               145,090
<PP&E>                                          35,587
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,744
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 188,576
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           21,223
<BONDS>                                          9,639
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           144
<OTHER-SE>                                     158,999
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   188,576
<SALES>                                        139,742
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               139,897
<CGS>                                           84,731
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      145
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                35,665
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   748
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 22,161
<INCOME-TAX>                                     8,135
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             14,026
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    14,026
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.09


</TABLE>
§ 115.64 Responder duties. ( a ) Upon learning of an allegation that a detainee was sexually abused, the first security staff member to respond to the report, or his or her supervisor, shall be required to: ( 1 ) Separate the alleged victim and abuser;
( 2 ) Preserve and protect, to the greatest extent possible, any crime scene until appropriate steps can be taken to collect any evidence;
( 3 ) If the abuse occurred within a time period that still allows for the collection of physical evidence, request the alleged victim not to take any actions that could destroy physical evidence, including, as appropriate, washing, brushing teeth, changing clothes, urinating, defecating, smoking, drinking, or eating; and
( 4 ) If the sexual abuse occurred within a time period that still allows for the collection of physical evidence, ensure that the alleged abuser does not take any actions that could destroy physical evidence, including, as appropriate, washing, brushing teeth, changing clothes, urinating, defecating, smoking, drinking, or eating.
( b ) If the first staff responder is not a security staff member, the responder shall be required to request that the alleged victim not take any actions that could destroy physical evidence and then notify security staff.
# C_2007082EN.01002402.xml

| 14.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 82/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/24

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 15 February 2007 — Comisión del Mercado de las Telecomunicaciónes v Administración del Estado

(Case C-82/07)

(2007/C 82/44)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo (Spain)

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Comisión del Mercado de las Telecomunicaciónes

Appellant:

Respondent: Administración del Estado

Respondent:

Questions referred

| 1. | Do Article 3(2) and Article 10(1) of Directive 2002/21/EC (1), in conjunction with Recital 11, require Member States to allocate to separate authorities ‘regulatory functions ’on the one hand and ‘operational ’functions on the other, in relation to assigning national numbering resources and managing national numbering plans? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Do Article 3(2) and Article 10(1) of Directive 2002/21/EC (1), in conjunction with Recital 11, require Member States to allocate to separate authorities ‘regulatory functions ’on the one hand and ‘operational ’functions on the other, in relation to assigning national numbering resources and managing national numbering plans?

1

| 2. | Where a Member State, on transposing Directive 2002/21/EC into its national law, has charged a specific authority with assigning national numbering resources and managing national numbering plans, may it at the same time reduce that authority's powers in that sphere, conferring them on other authorities or on its own State administration, with the result that management of those resources is in reality shared between various authorities? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Where a Member State, on transposing Directive 2002/21/EC into its national law, has charged a specific authority with assigning national numbering resources and managing national numbering plans, may it at the same time reduce that authority's powers in that sphere, conferring them on other authorities or on its own State administration, with the result that management of those resources is in reality shared between various authorities?

---

(1)  Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive).

1

---
# C_2006294EN.01002501.xml

| 2.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/25

---

Action brought on 15 September 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-380/06)

(2006/C 294/43)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Schima and S. Pardo Quintillán, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

Defendant:

Form of order sought

The Court is asked to:

| — | declare that, by authorising, under Law 3/2004 of 29 December 2004 on combating late payment in commercial transactions, a period of 90 days for the payment of specific staple foods and postponing the entry into force of certain provisions until 1 July 2006, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3(1)(2) and (4) of Directive 2000/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on combating late payment in commercial transactions (1); |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by authorising, under Law 3/2004 of 29 December 2004 on combating late payment in commercial transactions, a period of 90 days for the payment of specific staple foods and postponing the entry into force of certain provisions until 1 July 2006, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3(1)(2) and (4) of Directive 2000/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on combating late payment in commercial transactions (1);

1

| — | order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Directive 2000/35/EC does not provide for the partial or gradual application of its provisions in any circumstances. Accordingly the postponement until 1 July 2006 is contrary to Article 3(1) and (2) thereof. It also infringes Article 3(4) which provides that the Member States are to ensure that, in the interests of creditors and of competitors, adequate and effective means exist to prevent the continued use of terms which are manifestly unfair.

Thus the postponement of the application of the maximum period of 60 days cannot be regarded as an additional requirement in favour of creditors, nor is it in any event acceptable, in particular on account of the fact that national legislation to transpose Directive 2000/35/EC ought to have been brought into force before August 2002.

---

(1)  OJ L 200 of 8.8.2000. p. 35.

1

---
#### § 108.1 Applicability.

Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, all buildings, appurtenances, and equipment used in the preparation of biological products shall be in compliance with the regulations in this part. Each land area on which such buildings and appurtenances are located shall be identified by an address which shall appear on the establishment license.

[39 FR 16854, May 10, 1974, as amended at 56 FR 66783, Dec. 26, 1991]
### §4582. Hearings

#### (a) Requirements

#### (1) Venue and record

Any hearing under section 4581 or 4585 of this title shall be held on the record and in the District of Columbia.

#### (2) Timing

Any such hearing shall be fixed for a date not earlier than 30 days nor later than 60 days after service of the notice of charges under section 4581(b)(1) of this title or determination to impose a penalty under section 4585(c)(1) of this title, unless an earlier or a later date is set by the hearing officer at the request of the enterprise served.

#### (3) Procedure

Any such hearing shall be conducted in accordance with chapter 5 of title 5.

#### (4) Failure to appear

If the enterprise served fails to appear at the hearing through a duly authorized representative, such enterprise shall be deemed to have consented to the issuance of the cease-and-desist order or the imposition of the penalty for which the hearing is held.

#### (b) Issuance of order

#### (1) In general

After any such hearing, and within 90 days after the enterprise has been notified that the case has been submitted to the Director for final decision, the Director shall render the decision (which shall include findings of fact upon which the decision is predicated) and shall issue and serve upon the enterprise an order or orders consistent with the provisions of this subpart.

#### (2) Modification

Judicial review of any such order shall be exclusively as provided in section 4583 of this title. Unless such a petition for review is timely filed as provided in section 4583 of this title, and thereafter until the record in the proceeding has been filed as so provided, the Director may at any time, modify, terminate, or set aside any such order, upon such notice and in such manner as the Director considers proper. Upon such filing of the record, the Director may modify, terminate, or set aside any such order with permission of the court.

(Pub. L. 102–550, title XIII, §1342, Oct. 28, 1992, 106 Stat. 3965; Pub. L. 110–289, div. A, title I, §1130(e)(3)(A), July 30, 2008, 122 Stat. 2711.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2008—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 110–289 substituted "Director" for "Secretary" wherever appearing.
[No. 7781.]

#### LEE ET AL. V. THE PEOPLE *EX*REL. MAXWELLL *ET*AL.

*Error to Prowers District Cowrt.*Hon. Henry Hunter, Judge.

*Dismissed.*

Mr. I. B. Melville, Mr. C. C. Goodale, and Mr. Alfred Todd, for plaintiffs in error.-

Mr. Granby Hillyer, for defendants in error.
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 on Form 10-QSB of Horizon Holding Corporation (the Company), for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Allan Woodlief, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, do hereby certify, to my knowledge that:



(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 780(d)); 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/ Allan Woodlief                   
|Allan Woodlief                       
|President and Chief Financial Officer
|                                     
|Dated: May 16, 2005                  



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Horizon Holding Corporation and will be retained by Horizon Holding Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2006300EN.01002401.xml

| 9.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 300/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 300/24

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.4323 — Arla/Ingman Foods)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2006/C 300/08)

| 1. | On 30 November 2006, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking Arla Foods AB (‘Arla’, Sweden) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking Ingman Foods Oy Ab (‘Ingman Foods’, Finland) by way of purchase of shares. |
| --- | --- |

1.

On 30 November 2006, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking Arla Foods AB (‘Arla’, Sweden) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking Ingman Foods Oy Ab (‘Ingman Foods’, Finland) by way of purchase of shares.

1

| 2. | The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






  — | for Arla: supply of dairy products; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

—

for Arla: supply of dairy products;

| — | for Ingman Foods: supply of dairy products, primarily in Finland. |
| --- | --- |

—

for Ingman Foods: supply of dairy products, primarily in Finland.

| 3. | On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. |
| --- | --- |

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

| 4. | The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
  Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (fax No (32-2) 296 43 01 or 296 72 44) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.4323 — Arla/Ingman Foods, to the following address:





  European Commission |
| --- | --- |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| J-70 |
| B-1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |

4.

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (fax No (32-2) 296 43 01 or 296 72 44) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.4323 — Arla/Ingman Foods, to the following address:

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

J-70

B-1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---