alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 93.428 Sheep and goats and wild ruminants from Mexico. ( a ) Sheep, goats, and native wild ruminants intended for import from Mexico must be imported in accordance with § 93.435, and shall be accompanied by a certificate issued in accordance with § 93.405 and stating, if such sheep and goats are shipped by rail or truck, that such animals were loaded into cleaned and disinfected cars or trucks for transportation direct to the port of entry. Notwithstanding such certificate, such sheep and goats shall be detained as provided in § 93.427(a) and shall be dipped at least once in a permitted scabies dip under supervision of an inspector.
( b ) The certificate accompanying goats offered for importation from Mexico shall, in addition to the statements required by paragraph (a) of this section, state that such goats have been tested for tuberculosis and brucellosis with negative results within 30 days preceding their being offered for entry, and give the date and method of testing, the name of the consignor and of the consignee, and a description of the animals including breed, ages, markings, and tattoo and eartag numbers. Notwithstanding such certification, such goats shall be detained or quarantined as provided in § 93.427 and retested for brucellosis.
( c ) If sheep or goats are unaccompanied by the certificate as required by paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, or if they are found upon inspection or retesting, as provided for in this part, to be affected with a communicable disease or to have been exposed thereto, they shall be refused entry and shall be handled or quarantined, or otherwise disposed of as the Administrator may direct.
( d ) Certificates will not be required for wild ruminants, other than sheep and goats, originating in and shipped direct from Mexico, but such animals are subject to inspection at the port of entry as provided in § 93.426.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control numbers 0579-0040 and 0579-0453) [55 FR 31495, Aug. 2, 1990, as amended at 56 FR 367, Jan. 4, 1991; 57 FR 28081, June 24, 1992; 61 FR 17239, Apr. 19, 1996. Redesignated and amended at 62 FR 56012, 56019, Oct. 28, 1997; 68 FR 6344, Feb. 7, 2003; 86 FR 68859, Dec. 3, 2021]
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1250,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the quarterly report of Power3 Medical Products, Inc.(the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2005as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Steven B. Rash, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, to the bestof my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

The Report fully compiles with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 

 
| September 9, 2005 | /s/Steven B. Rash                          |   |
|-------------------|--------------------------------------------|--------|
|              | Steven B. Rash                             |
|              |                                       |
|              |  Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |
|              |  Power3 Medical Products, Inc.   |

 

1

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-7708

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

NICK HALTEH, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District 

Judge. (1:05-cr-00068-GBL-1; 1:08-cv-00534-GBL) 

Submitted: January 13, 2009 Decided: January 20, 2009 

Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and TRAXLER and KING, Circuit 

Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Nick Halteh, Appellant Pro Se. Jonathan Leo Fahey, OFFICE OF 

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Nick Halteh seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order 

is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this 

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find 

that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district 

court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural 

ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. MillerEl v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 

529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th 

Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and 

conclude that Halteh 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
#### Conrad Schnell *et ux v.*Paul Rothbath.

*Continuance—stateness of party.*If a continuance is asked on the ground of the sickness of a party, that fact must be shown by affidavit, and not by the mere certificate of his physician; and it must also be shown that his presence at the trial was necessary, to give testimony or otherwise.

*84Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. William A. Portee, Judge, presiding.

Mr. Joseph Schlernitzauee, for the appellants.

Per Curiam :

The only question here presented, is upon the overruling of a motion for a continuance.

The suit was against Conrad Schnell and Caroline Schnell, his wife, to enforce a mechanic’s lien upon premises owned by the latter.

Upon the cause being called for trial, on the 28th day of April, 1873, a motion for a continuance was made on behalf of the defendants, and overruled by the court. The motion was based upon the affidavit of one Walter, a clerk for the solicitor of the defendants, stating, merely, that on the 25th of April, 1873, he went to the house of the said Conrad Schnell, and found him sick in bed, and unable to attend court, and obtained from his attending physician a certificate of that fact; and that the affiant again went to see whether the said Conrad would be able to come into court the 28th of April, 1873, and that the physician made another like certificate. The certificates were attached to the affidavit.

The court was not required to act upon the mere certificate of a physician, but should have had evidence, under oath, of the sickness of Conrad Schnell. There was no such evidence of his sickness on the 28th of April. The affidavit showed no necessity whatever for his presence at the trial, either to give testimony or for any other purpose. The affidavit was manifestly wholly insufficient for the purpose of procuring a continuance.

The judgment is affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*
Exhibit 13.2
 CERTIFICATION
 Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
 
 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code)
 
 Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Millicom International Cellular, S.A. a company incorporated under the laws of the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg (the “Company”), hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:
 The Amendment No. 1 on Form 20-F/A to the Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2019 (the “Report”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Amendment No. 1 on Form 20-F/A fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Date: March 13, 2020
 By:/s/ Tim PenningtonName:   Tim PenningtonTitle:   Senior Executive Vice President,        Chief Financial Officer
#### William H. Ely and Others, as Ancillary Executors of and Trustees under the Last Will and Testament of Ambrose K. Ely, Deceased, Respondent, v. The City of New York, Appellant.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. No opinion.
### §4642. Reporting of fraudulent loans

#### (a) Requirement to report

The Director shall require a regulated entity to submit to the Director a timely report upon discovery by the regulated entity that it has purchased or sold a fraudulent loan or financial instrument, or suspects a possible fraud relating to the purchase or sale of any loan or financial instrument. The Director shall require each regulated entity to establish and maintain procedures designed to discover any such transactions.

#### (b) Protection from liability for reports

Any regulated entity that, in good faith, makes a report pursuant to subsection (a), and any entity-affiliated party, that, in good faith, makes or requires another to make any such report, shall not be liable to any person under any provision of law or regulation, any constitution, law, or regulation of any State or political subdivision of any State, or under any contract or other legally enforceable agreement (including any arbitration agreement) for such report or for any failure to provide notice of such report to the person who is the subject of such report or any other persons identified in the report.

(Pub. L. 102–550, title XIII, §1379E, as added Pub. L. 110–289, div. A, title I, §1115, July 30, 2008, 122 Stat. 2681.)
Exhibit 31.2**CERTIFICATION**I, Christopher A. Stephenson, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Catapult Communications Corporation; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation;  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.   Date: August 8, 2005       /s/ Christopher A. Stephenson     (Christopher A. Stephenson)
### §2511. Patents

Section 5908 of title 42 shall apply to any contract (including any assignment, substitution of parties, or subcontract thereunder), entered into, made, or issued by the Secretary of Energy pursuant to section 2507 of this title.

(Pub. L. 94–413, §12, Sept. 17, 1976, 90 Stat. 1269; Pub. L. 95–91, title III, §301(a), Aug. 4, 1977, 91 Stat. 577.)

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

#### Transfer of Functions

"Secretary of Energy" substituted in text for "Administrator" pursuant to section 301(a) of Pub. L. 95–91, see Codification note set out under section 2502 of this title.
# C_2011139EN.01001202.xml

| 7.5.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 139/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 139/12

---

Action brought on 22 November 2010 — Transportes y Excavaciones J. Asensi S.L. v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-540/10)

2011/C 139/20

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Transportes y Excavaciones J. Asensi S.L. (represented by: C. Nicolau Castellanos, abogado)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

Defendant:

By order of 10 March 2011 the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) declared that it is clear that the Court has no jurisdiction to take cognisance of the action.

---
# C_2006331EN.01005001.xml

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/50

---

Order of the President of the Civil Service Tribunal of 14 December 2006 — Dálnoky v Commission

(Case F-120/06 R)

(Application for interim measures - Notice of competition - Admissibility of main action - Urgency - None)

(2006/C 331/111)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Noémi Dálnoky (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: P. Horváth, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and H. Kraemer, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Suspension of the operation of the tests in Open Competition EPSO/AD/47/06 pending judgment on the application for annulment of the notice of that competition published in the Official Journal of the European Union of 21 June 2006 (OJ 2006 C 145 A, p. 1).

Official Journal of the European Union

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The costs are reserved.

---
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 6, 2017

No. 04

- 17

- 00520

- CV

Thilo BURZLAFF , M.D., P.A., and Tamela Arabit

- Burzlaff

, Appellant s

v.

Janet M. WEBER,

Appellee

From the 45th Judicial District Court, B exar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015CI03358

Honorable Solomon Casseb, III, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellees ’ motion for extension of time to file t heir brief is granted. The appellees ’ brief

is due on November 16, 2017.

_________________________________ Sandee Br yan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 6th day of November, 2017

.

______________________________ _____ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 139 (Thursday, July 19, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 42546]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-17639]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 7957]

In the Matter of the Designation of Ahmed Abdulrahman Sihab Ahmed 
Sihab as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist Pursuant to Section 
1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as Amended

    Acting under the authority of and in accordance with section 1(b) 
of Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, as amended by Executive 
Order 13268 of July 2, 2002, and Executive Order 13284 of January 23, 
2003, I hereby determine that the individual known as Ahmed Abdulrahman 
Sihab Ahmed Sihab, committed, or poses a significant risk of 
committing, acts of terrorism that threaten the security of U.S. 
nationals or the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the 
United States.
    Consistent with the determination in Section 10 of Executive Order 
13224 that ``prior notice to persons determined to be subject to the 
Order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States 
would render ineffectual the blocking and other measures authorized in 
the Order because of the ability to transfer funds instantaneously,'' I 
determine that no prior notice needs to be provided to any person 
subject to this determination who might have a constitutional presence 
in the United States, because to do so would render ineffectual the 
measures authorized in the Order.
    This notice shall be published in the Federal Register.

    Dated: April 18, 2012.
William J. Burns,
Deputy Secretary of State.
[FR Doc. 2012-17639 Filed 7-18-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-10-P
```
Exhibit 99.2

Section 906 Certification

Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the undersigned hereby certifies that:

(1) I have reviewed the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Inland Monthly Income Fund II, L.P. (the "Report") to which this statement is an Exhibit;

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

(3) The information contained in the Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Inland Monthly Income Fund II, L.P.

 

By: Inland Real Estate Investment Corporation

       General Partner

/S/ Kelly Tucek____________________________________

Name: Kelly Tucek

Title: Assistant Vice President of the General Partner and

         Principal Financial Officer of Inland Monthly Income Fund II, L.P.

Date: November 12, 2002
#### § 590.122 Time of inspection.

The inspector who is to perform the inspection in an official plant shall be given reasonable advance notice by plant management of the hours when such inspection will be required.

[60 FR 49169, Sept. 21, 1995]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

JAMES ARTHUR BIGGINS, § 

§ No. 252, 2015

Plaintiff Below, §

Appellant, § Court Below–Court of 

§ Chancery of the State of 

v. § Delaware

§

PERRY PHELPS, MICHAEL § C.A. No. 5121-VCN

COSTELLO, JAMES §

SCARBOROUGH, MARK D. § 

DRUM, MICHAEL FOWLER, §

LARRY SAVAGE and THOMAS §

AIELLO, §

§

Defendants Below, §

Appellees. §

Submitted: June 1, 2015

Decided: June 3, 2015

Before HOLLAND, VALIHURA and SEITZ, Justices.

O R D E R

This 3

rd day of June 2015, it appears to the Court that:

(1) This appeal is from an order dated April 14, 2015, dismissing 

the appellant’s complaint in the Court of Chancery. The appellant, James 

Arthur Biggins, is incarcerated at the James T. Vaughn Correctional Center, 

a Delaware correctional facility. The office of the Clerk received Biggins’ 

notice of appeal on May 19, 2015, thirty-five days after entry upon the 

docket of the April 14, 2015 order.
2

(2) “It is well-established that time is a jurisdictional requirement 

in Delaware.”1 A notice of appeal must be received by the office of the 

Clerk within thirty days after entry upon the docket of the order from which 

the appeal is taken.2 The only exception to the rule is when the appellant 

can demonstrate that the failure to file the appeal within the thirty-day period 

is attributable to court personnel.3

(3) On May 19, 2015, the Clerk issued a notice directing Biggins to 

show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed as untimely filed.4 

Biggins filed a response to the notice to show cause on June 1, 2015. In his 

response, Biggins asserts that his appeal should be considered as filed on 

May 8, 2015, the date he placed the appeal papers in the prison mail system 

at the James T. Vaughn Correctional Center. Biggins is mistaken. Delaware 

has not adopted a rule that deems a prisoner’s notice of appeal “filed” at the 

moment of delivery to prison authorities for mailing to the court.5

(4) Biggins does not dispute that his notice of appeal was received 

after the thirty-day appeal period, and neither Biggins nor the record 

 

1

Smith v. State, 47 A.3d 481, 484 (Del. 2012). 

2 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(i), 10(a), 11(b).

3

See Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979) (allowing untimely appeal when 

documentary evidence showed court-related personnel prevented perfection of timely 

appeal).

4 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 29(b).

5

Smith v. State, 47 A.3d 481, 486 (Del. 2012). 
3

suggests that the delay in filing the appeal is attributable to court-related 

personnel.6 Accordingly, this case does not fall within the exception to the 

general rule that mandates the timely filing of a notice of appeal.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rules 

6(a)(i) and 29(b), that the appeal is DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Karen L. Valihura

Justice

 

6

See Evans v. State, 2013 WL 310177 (Del. Jan. 25, 2013) (“Prison personnel are not 

court-related personnel.”).