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


                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                                   PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, Nigel P. Ekern, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Amendment
No. 1 to Annual Report of Clarus Corporation on Form 10-K/A for the year ended
December 31, 2003, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in
such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the
financial condition and results of operations of Clarus Corporation.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



Date: April 29, 2004                     By: /s/ Nigel P. Ekern
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             Name:  Nigel P. Ekern
                                             Title: Chief Administrative Officer
# C_2011013EN.01004102.xml

| 15.1.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 13/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.1.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 13/41

---

Action brought on 4 October 2010 — Kerstens v Commission

(Case F-97/10)

()

2011/C 13/82

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Petrus Kerstens (Overijse, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi and S. Rodrigues, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application to maintain the effects of contested salary slips pending the adoption of a regulation replacing, with retroactive effect, Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1296/2009 of 23 December 2009 and for payment of damages for the material and non-material damage suffered by the applicant.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | the maintenance of the effects of contested salary slips pending the adoption of a regulation replacing, with retroactive effect, Regulation No 1296/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

the maintenance of the effects of contested salary slips pending the adoption of a regulation replacing, with retroactive effect, Regulation No 1296/2009;

| — | order the Commission to compensate the applicant for the financial loss he suffered by the payment of a sum to the amount equivalent to the loss of earnings resulting from the application of the manifestly illegal Regulation No 1296/2009, plus the repayment of the part of the special levy applied monthly since January 2010 in accordance with Article 66 of the Staff Regulations, the rate of which was erroneously fixed taking account of that regulation: that amount is estimated, without prejudice to the interpretation of the Tribunal, at between EUR 40 000 and EUR 50 000, excluding default interest which was also applied for by the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to compensate the applicant for the financial loss he suffered by the payment of a sum to the amount equivalent to the loss of earnings resulting from the application of the manifestly illegal Regulation No 1296/2009, plus the repayment of the part of the special levy applied monthly since January 2010 in accordance with Article 66 of the Staff Regulations, the rate of which was erroneously fixed taking account of that regulation: that amount is estimated, without prejudice to the interpretation of the Tribunal, at between EUR 40 000 and EUR 50 000, excluding default interest which was also applied for by the applicant;

| — | order the Commission to pay symbolic damages of one euro to the applicant for the non-material damage he suffered; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay symbolic damages of one euro to the applicant for the non-material damage he suffered;

| — | order the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs.

---
# C_2015302EN.01003001.xml

| 14.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 302/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 302/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2015 — GEA Group v Commission

(Case T-45/10) (1)

1

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for ESBO/esters heat stabilisers - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Price fixing, market allocation and exchange of commercially sensitive information - Fines - Attribution of the infringement - Shareholding presumption - Duration and proof of the infringement - Limitation period - Duration of the administrative procedure - Reasonable time - Rights of the defence))

(2015/C 302/38)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: GEA Group AG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: A. Kallmayer, I. du Mont, G. Schiffers and R. Van der Hout, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Sauer and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, acting as Agents, and W. Berg, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 8682 final of 11 November 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C38.589 — Heat stabilisers), or, in the alternative, a reduction in the fine imposed.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders GEA Group AG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders GEA Group AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 100, 17.4.2010.

1

---
#### § 3.12 Employees.

Each person subject to the Animal Welfare regulations (9 CFR parts 1, 2, and 3) maintaining dogs and cats must have enough employees to carry out the level of husbandry practices and care required in this subpart. The employees who provide for husbandry and care, or handle animals, must be supervised by an individual who has the knowledge, background, and experience in proper husbandry and care of dogs and cats to supervise others. The employer must be certain that the supervisor and other employees can perform to these standards.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-2386

ZEWDI ARAIA,

Petitioner,

versus

JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals. (A79-092-162)

Submitted: June 9, 2004 Decided: August 4, 2004

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rev. Uduak J. Ubom, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Peter D.

Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Richard M. Evans, Assistant

Director, Susan K. Houser, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION,

Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Zewdi Araia, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions

for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

affirming without opinion the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of

asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention

Against Torture. For the reasons discussed below, we deny the

petition for review.

Araia asserts that she established her eligibility for

asylum. To obtain reversal of a determination denying eligibility

for relief, an alien “must show that the evidence he presented was

so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the

requisite fear of persecution.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S.

478, 483-84 (1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and

conclude that Araia fails to show that the evidence compels a

contrary result. Accordingly, we cannot grant the relief that

Araia seeks.

Additionally, we uphold the IJ’s denial of Araia’s

application for withholding of removal. The standard for

withholding of removal is more stringent than that for granting

asylum. Chen v. INS, 195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th Cir. 1999). To

qualify for withholding of removal, an applicant must demonstrate

“a clear probability of persecution.” INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480

U.S. 421, 430 (1987). Because Araia fails to show she is eligible
- 3 -

for asylum, she cannot meet the higher standard for withholding of

removal.

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 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.

PETITION DENIED
# C_2010346EN.01003301.xml

| 18.12.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 346/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.12.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 346/33

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administratif de Rennes (France) lodged on 11 October 2010 — L’Océane Immobilière SAS v Direction de contrôle fiscal Ouest

(Case C-487/10)

()

2010/C 346/55

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal Administratif de Rennes

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: L’Océane Immobilière SAS

Applicant:

Defendant: Direction de contrôle fiscal Ouest

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Does Article 5 of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 (1) allow a Member State to maintain in force or establish a provision imposing value added tax on the supply by a taxable person to itself of property for the use of its business, although that supply gives rise to a right to deduct the value added tax thereby levied immediately and in full?

1

---

(1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).

1

---
The Honorable James M. Rosenbaum, United States Distric

for the District of Minnesota.

___________

No. 96-1869

John Erwin Beck,

 *

 *

v.

 * District of Minnesota.

 * [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee.

___________

 Filed: September 11, 1996

Before BEAM, HANSEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

 civil forfeitures of cash seized in connection with hi

arres John Erwin Beck pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting th

possession 6

s United States v

Beck th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (Table). Beck then filed

 28 U n

Brady v. Maryland .

 87 (1 denied the motion, and Bec 1

We ieve the district court properly denied Beck's motio

without an evidentiary hearing
-2-

we conclude the motion, files, and records of the case conclusively

show Beck is not entitled to relief. See Holloway v. United

States, 960 F.2d 1348, 1351 (8th Cir. 1992) (standard of review).

Beck's double jeopardy argument is foreclosed for the reasons

set forth in United States v. Ursery, 116 S. Ct. 2135, 2148-49

(1996) (holding civil forfeitures under 21 U.S.C. § 881 (a)(6) and

(7) are neither "punishment" nor criminal for purposes of Double

Jeopardy Clause). We agree with the district court that counsel

was not ineffective for failing to raise the double jeopardy claim.

See Rodriguez v. United States, 17 F.3d 225, 226 (8th Cir. 1994)

(per curiam) (counsel not ineffective for failing to pursue

meritless argument). We also agree there is no merit to Beck's

claim that the government should have disclosed the fact, and legal

effect, of the prior forfeitures. See Brady, 373 U.S. at 87

(government must disclose favorable evidence that is material to

either guilt or punishment); United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667,

682 (1985) (evidence is material only if there is reasonable

probability result of proceeding would have been different had it

been disclosed to defense); United States v. Manthei, 979 F.2d 124,

127 (8th Cir. 1992) (Brady is not violated where defendant was

aware of evidence prior to trial).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
### §3331. Purpose

The purpose of this chapter is to provide that Federal financial and public policy interests in real estate related transactions will be protected by requiring that real estate appraisals utilized in connection with federally related transactions are performed in writing, in accordance with uniform standards, by individuals whose competency has been demonstrated and whose professional conduct will be subject to effective supervision.

(Pub. L. 101–73, title XI, §1101, Aug. 9, 1989, 103 Stat. 511.)
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jill Corey, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 2.)

[823 NYS2d 744]

Appeal from a judgment of the Yates County Court (W. Patrick Falvey, J.), rendered July 6, 2004. The judgment revoked defendant’s probation and imposed a sentence of incarceration.

It is hereby ordered that said appeal be and the same hereby is unanimously dismissed as moot *(see People v Griffin,*239 AD2d 936 [1997]). Present—Scudder, J.E, Kehoe, Gorski, Smith and Fine, JJ.
§ 112.4 Issuance of advisory opinions (52 U.S.C. 30108(a) and (b)). ( a ) Within 60 calendar days after receiving an advisory opinion request that qualifies under 11 CFR 112.1, the Commission shall issue to the requesting person a written advisory opinion or shall issue a written response stating that the Commission was unable to approve an advisory opinion by the required affirmative vote of 4 members.
( b ) The 60 calendar day period of 11 CFR 112.4(a) is reduced to 20 calendar days for an advisory opinion request qualified under 11 CFR 112.1 provided the request: ( 1 ) Is submitted by any candidate, including any authorized committee of the candidate (or agent of either), within the 60 calendar days preceding the date of any election for Federal office in which the candidate is seeking nomination or election; and
( 2 ) Presents a specific transaction or activity related to the election that may invoke the 20 day period if the connection is explained in the request.
( c ) The 60 day and 20 day periods referred to in 11 CFR 112.4 (a) and (b) only apply when the Commission has received a qualified and complete advisory opinion request under 11 CFR 112.1, and when the 60th or 20th day occurs on a Saturday, Sunday or Federal holiday, the respective period ends at the close of the business day next following the weekend or holiday.
( d ) The Commission may issue advisory opinions pertaining only to the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended, chapters 95 or 96 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, or rules or regulations duly prescribed under those statutes.
( e ) Any rule of law which is not stated in the Act or in chapters 95 or 96 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, or in a regulation duly prescribed by the Commission, may be initially proposed only as a rule or regulation pursuant to procedures established in 52 U.S.C. 30111(d) or 26 U.S.C. 9009(c) and 9039(c) as applicable.
( f ) No opinion of an advisory nature may be issued by the Commission or any of its employees except in accordance with 11 CFR part 112; however, this limitation does not preclude distribution by the Commission of information consistent with the Act and chapters 95 or 96 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.
( g ) When issued by the Commission, each advisory opinion or other response under 11 CFR 112.4(a) shall be made public and be provided to the person who requested the opinion.
[45 FR 15123, Mar. 7, 1980, as amended at 79 FR 77849, Dec. 29, 2014; 89 FR 218, Jan. 2, 2024]
# C_2007082EN.01003502.xml

| 14.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 82/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/35

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 February 2007 — Bodegas Franco-Españolas v OHIM — Companhia Geral da Agricultura das Vinhas do Alto Douro (ROYAL)

(Case T-501/04) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark ROYAL - Earlier Community word mark ROYAL FEITORIA - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2007/C 82/78)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Bodegas Franco-Españolas, SA (Logroño, Spain) (represented by: E. López Camba, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Companhia Geral da Agricultura das Vinhas do Alto Douro, SA (Real Companhia Velha) (Vila Nova de Gaia, Portugal) (represented by: D. Martins Pereira, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 October 2004 (Case R 513/2002-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Companhia Geral da Agricultura das Vinhas do Alto Douro, SA (Real Companhia Velha) and Bodegas Franco-Españolas, SA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)(OHIM) of 25 October 2004 (Case R 513/2002-1); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)(OHIM) of 25 October 2004 (Case R 513/2002-1);

| 2. | Orders OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders OHIM to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 45, 19.2.2005.

1

---
#### § 91.1 Definitions.

As used in this part, the following terms will have the meanings set forth in this section:

*Accredited veterinarian.* A veterinarian approved by the Administrator in accordance with part 161 of this chapter to perform functions specified in parts 1, 2, 3, and 11 of subchapter A, and subchapters B, C, and D of this chapter, and to perform functions required by cooperative State-Federal disease control and eradication programs.

*Administrator.* The Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, or any person authorized to act for the Administrator.

*Animal.* Any member of the animal kingdom (except a human).

*Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS).* The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service of the United States Department of Agriculture.

*APHIS representative.* An individual who is authorized by APHIS to perform the function involved.

*Date of export.* The date animals intended for export are loaded onto an ocean vessel or aircraft or, if moved by land to Canada or Mexico, the date the animals cross the border.

*Export health certificate.* An official document issued in the United States that certifies that animals or other commodities listed on the certificate meet the export requirements of this part and the importing country.

*Export inspection facility.* A facility that is affiliated with a port of embarkation and that has been approved by the Administrator as the location where APHIS will conduct health inspections of livestock before they are loaded onto ocean vessels or aircraft for export from the United States.

*Export isolation facility.* A facility where animals intended for export are isolated from other animals for a period of time immediately before being moved for export.

*Horses.* Horses, mules, and asses.

*Inspector.* An individual authorized by APHIS to inspect animals and/or animal products intended for export from the United States.

*Livestock.* Horses, cattle (including American bison), captive cervids, sheep, swine, and goats, regardless of intended use.

*Premises of export.* The premises where the animals intended for export are isolated as required by the importing country prior to export or, if the importing country does not require pre-export isolation, the farm or other premises where the animals are assembled for pre-export inspection and/or testing, or the germplasm is collected or stored, before being moved to a port of embarkation or land border port.

*Program diseases.* Diseases for which there are cooperative State-Federal programs and domestic regulations in subchapter C of this chapter.

*Program Handbook.* A document that contains guidance and other information related to the regulations in this part. The Program Handbook is available on APHIS' import-export Web site (*http://www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/index.shtml*).

*State of origin.* The State in which the premises of export is located.
-  Home 
-  Safe Transportation of Energy Products 

# In This Section

                      -  Safe Transportation of Energy Products Overview 
                      -  Call to Action 
                      -  Operator Classification 
                      -  Emergency Response and Training 
                      -  Liquefied Natural Gas - Transportation by Rail 

# Search Safety Awareness Reports

# Search Safety Awareness Reports

# Pagination

-  1 
-  2 
-  3 
-  ››› 
-  »Last »
#### § 1301.56 Final determination.

The General Counsel makes the final determination whether a demand for testimony or production of records or official testimony in a legal proceeding in which TVA is not a party shall be granted. All final determinations are within the sole discretion of the General Counsel. The General Counsel will notify the requesting party and, when necessary, the court or other authority of the final determination, the reasons for the grant or denial of the request, and any conditions that the General Counsel may impose on the production of testimony or records or official information.