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 Quarterly Report of Power3 Medical Products, Inc (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period  ended
      June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
      hereof (the “Report”), I, Steven B. Rash, Chief Executive Officer of the
      Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section  1350
      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 SecuritiesExchange
                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.





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.





The
      foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section  1350
      and
      is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act
      of
      1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing
      of
      the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any
      general incorporation language in such filing.





Dated:    August
                14, 2008
            By:
            /s/    
                Steven B. RashSteven
                B. Rash,
              Chairman
                and CEO (principle executive
                officer)
§ 367.102 Accounts 408.1 and 408.2, Taxes other than income taxes. ( a ) These accounts must include the amounts of ad valorem, gross revenue or gross receipts taxes, state unemployment insurance, franchise taxes, Federal excise taxes, social security taxes, and all other taxes assessed by Federal, state, county, municipal, or other local governmental authorities, except income taxes.
( b ) These accounts shall be charged in each accounting period with the amounts of taxes which are applicable to each account, with concurrent credits to account 236, Taxes accrued (§ 367.2360), or account 165, Prepayments (§ 367.1650), as appropriate. When it is not possible to determine the exact amounts of taxes, the amounts shall be estimated and adjustments made in current accruals as the actual tax levies become known.
( c ) Special assessments for street and similar improvements must be included in the appropriate service company property account.
( d ) Taxes specifically applicable to construction must be included in the cost of construction.
( e ) Gasoline and other sales taxes must be charged as far as practicable to the same account as the materials on which the tax is levied.
( f ) Social security and other forms of so-called payroll taxes must be distributed to utility and non-utility functions on a basis related to payroll. Amounts applicable to construction must be charged to the appropriate plant account.
( g ) Interest on tax refunds or deficiencies must not be included in these accounts but in accounts 419, Interest and dividend income (§ 367.4190), or 431, Other interest expense (§ 367.4310), as appropriate.
## MA**TERIA LS NOT INCLUDED IN** 

**AI RWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE (A**  **D) DOCKET**
**FAA -**  **20 13**  **- 0398**  Docket Number
**20 11**  **- SW**  **- 065**  **- AD**  Directorate Identifier Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in DMS Docket and Maintained in the Supplemental AD Docket Eurocopter EC 135 Alert Service Bulletin No. EC135 - 26A - 003, Revision 2, dated December 19, 2011 .


### MA **Y BE VIEWED AT:** Federal Aviation Administration

Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region Rules Docket 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663 Fort W orth, Texas 76137 **D URING THE HOURS OF:**  9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
T.C. Memo. 1995-461 UNITED STATES TAX COURT LOUIS G. WITTIG, Petitioner v . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 673-94. Filed September 27, 1995. This opinion was withdrawn by Order dated November 9, 1995.
§ 590.504 General operating procedures. ( a ) Operations involving the processing, storing, and handling of eggs, ingredients, and egg products must be done in a sanitary manner.
( b ) ( 1 ) Eggs and egg products are subject to inspection in each official plant processing egg products for commerce.
( 2 ) Any eggs and egg products not processed in accordance with the regulations in this part or part 591 or that are not otherwise fit for human food must be removed and segregated.
( c ) ( 1 ) All loss and inedible eggs or inedible egg products must be placed in a container clearly labeled “inedible” and containing a sufficient amount of denaturant or decharacterant, such as an FDA-approved color additive, suspended in the product. Eggs must be crushed and the substance dispersed through the product in amounts sufficient to give the product a distinctive appearance or odor. Inedible product may be held in containers clearly labeled “inedible” which do not contain a denaturant as long as such inedible product is properly packaged, labeled and segregated, and inventory controls are maintained. Such inedible product must be denatured or decharacterized before being shipped from a facility.
( 2 ) Undenatured egg products or inedible egg products that are not decharacterized may be shipped from an official plant for industrial use or animal food, provided that it is properly packaged, labeled, and segregated, and inventory controls are maintained.
( d ) ( 1 ) Egg products must be processed to meet the standard set out in § 590.570.
( 2 ) Unpasteurized or microbial pathogen-positive egg products may be shipped from an official plant to another official plant only when they are to be pasteurized, heat treated, or treated using other methods of treatment sufficient to produce egg products that are edible without additional preparation to achieve food safety in the second official plant. Official plants must maintain control of shipments of unpasteurized or microbial pathogen-positive egg products shipped from one official plant to another official plant for pasteurization or treatment. Shipping plants must seal such shipments in cars or trucks and label them in accordance with § 590.410(c). Containers of unpasteurized or microbial pathogen-positive egg product must be marked with the identification mark shown in Figure 2 of § 590.415.
( e ) Inspection program personnel may allow an official plant to move egg products that have been sampled and analyzed for Salmonella, or for any other reason, before receiving the test results, if they do not suspect noncompliance by the plant with any provisions of this part. The official plant must maintain control of the products represented by the sample pending the results.
[36 FR 9814, May 28, 1971, as amended at 37 FR 6658, Apr. 1, 1972; 40 FR 20059, May 8, 1975. Redesignated at 42 FR 32514, June 27, 1977, and further redesignated at 46 FR 63203, Dec. 31, 1981, as amended at 47 FR 745, Jan. 7, 1982; 60 FR 49170, Sept. 21, 1995; 85 FR 81341, Dec. 16, 2020]
# C_2013141EN.01000402.xml

| 18.5.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 141/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.5.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 141/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 14 March 2013 — Viega GmbH & Co. KG v European Commission

(Case C-276/11 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Copper and copper alloy fittings sector - End-feed fittings and press fittings - Taking and assessment of the evidence - Right to be heard before a court - Obligation to state reasons - Principle of proportionality)

2013/C 141/06

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Appellant Viega GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: J. Burrichter, T. Mäger and M. Röhrig, Rechtsanwälte)

Appellant

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka, R. Sauer, Agents, and A. Böhlke, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 March 2011 in Case T-375/06 Viega GmbH & Co. KG v Commission, by which the General Court dismissed the applicant’s action seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 4180 final of 20 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the Treaty establishing the European Community and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement concerning a cartel in the copper and copper alloy fittings sector or, in the alternative, the reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant — Infringement of the right to be heard before a court, of the principle of proportionality and of the obligation to state reasons — Infringement of the principles of the investigation procedure — Infringement of Article 81(1) EC and Article 23(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1)

Viega GmbH & Co. KG

Commission

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Viega GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Viega GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 238, 13.8.2011.

1

---
---

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

I, Alain Kardos, Chief Executive Officer of Image Innovations
  Holdings Inc., 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. 2 to
  Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Image Innovations Holdings Inc., for the
  quarterly period ending June 30, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of
  Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information
  contained in the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB fairly presents in all material
  respects the financial condition and results of operations of Image Innovations
  Holdings Inc.

| | By:    | /s/ Alain Kardos       
| | ------ | -----------------------
| |        |                        
| | Name:  | Alain Kardos           
| |        |                        
| | Title: | Chief Executive Officer
| |        |                        
| | Date:  | February 19, 2004      

---
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

636 

KA 13-02116 

PRESENT: CARNI, J.P., LINDLEY, DEJOSEPH, CURRAN, AND TROUTMAN, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

CHRISTOPHER M. HORR, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

 

DAVISON LAW OFFICE PLLC, CANANDAIGUA (MARY P. DAVISON OF COUNSEL), FOR

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER, FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Alex

R. Renzi, J.), rendered October 2, 2013. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon a jury verdict, of assault in the second degree, false

personation and resisting arrest. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him

following a jury trial of, inter alia, assault in the second degree

(Penal Law § 120.05 [3]). Defendant failed to preserve for our review

his contention that Supreme Court failed to articulate a sufficient

jury instruction with respect to the causation element of Penal Law 

§ 120.05 (3) (see generally People v Townsley, 50 AD3d 1610, 1611, lv

denied 11 NY3d 742), and we decline to review that contention as a

matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [6]

[a]). Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crimes as

charged to the jury (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349), we

conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence

(see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495).

We reject defendant’s contention that the court abused its

discretion in denying his request for new counsel. The general

assertions of defendant that counsel was “not complying with [his]

wishes” and that he was not “being represented properly” were not

sufficient to raise a “ ‘serious complaint’ ” warranting substitution

of counsel (People v Adger, 83 AD3d 1590, 1591, lv denied 17 NY3d

857). Finally, the court properly granted defendant’s request to

proceed pro se after inquiring into defendant’s education and

knowledge of legal matters, making defendant aware of the

disadvantages of proceeding without counsel, and appointing standby

counsel to assist defendant at trial, if necessary (see generally 
-2- 636 

KA 13-02116 

People v Providence, 2 NY3d 579, 582).

Entered: April 28, 2017 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
**Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 November 2011 – Three‐N‐Products Private v OHIM – Shah (AYUURI NATURAL)**

**(Case T-313/10)**

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark AYUURI NATURAL – Earlier Community word and figurative marks AYUR – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Similarity of the signs – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services
– Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 54, 64-65)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 June 2010 (Case R 1005/2009‐4), relating to opposition proceedings between (i) Three‐N‐Products Private Ltd and (ii) S. Shah, A. Shah and Mr M. Shah. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for the Harmonisation of the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 1 June 2010 (Case R 1005/2009‐4); |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders OHIM to pay its own costs and those of Three‐N‐Products Private Ltd; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 3. | | Orders Sheleish Shah and Akhil Shah to bear their own costs and the costs necessarily incurred by Three‐N‐Products Private Ltd for the purposes of the proceedings before the Fourth Board of Appeal. |
# C_2012295EN.01001102.xml

| 29.9.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 295/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.9.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 295/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Bawaria Motors sp. z o.o. v Minister Finansów

(Case C-160/11) (1)

1

(Directive 2006/112/EC - VAT - Article 136 - Exemptions - Articles 313 to 315 - Special margin scheme - Supply of second-hand vehicles by a taxable dealer - Vehicles previously supplied exempt from VAT to a taxable dealer by another taxable person which had a right of partial deduction of input tax)

2012/C 295/18

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bawaria Motors sp. z o.o.

Applicant:

Defendant: Minister Finansów

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Interpretation of Articles 136, 313(1), 314 and 315 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Special arrangements for taxable dealers — Sale of second-hand vehicles to a final consumer — Application of the margin scheme where the dealer purchased the vehicle exempt from tax from a person which itself benefited from a partial deduction of input tax

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 313(1) and 314 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, read in conjunction with Articles 136 and 315 of that directive must be interpreted as meaning that a taxable dealer is not eligible for the application of the margin scheme where it supplies motor vehicles considered to be second-hand goods, within the meaning of Article 311(1)(1) of that directive, which it has previously acquired exempt from VAT from another taxable person which had only a right of partial deduction of input VAT paid on the purchase price of those vehicles.

---

(1)  OJ C 204, 9.7.2011.

1

---
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATION





I, Joseph L. Boling, Chief Executive Officer of Middleburg Financial Corporation, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Middleburg Financial Corporation;



2.

Based on my knowledge, this annual report does 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 annual report;



3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;



4.

The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



(a)

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;



(b)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



(c)

Disclosed in this annual report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



5.

The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



(a)

All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



---

(b)

Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.



Date:  March 30, 2004



/s/ Joseph L. Boling



Joseph L. Boling

Chief Executive Officer
### §8711. Amendments to orders

The provisions of this chapter applicable to the order shall be applicable to any amendment to the order, except that section 8707 of this title shall not apply to an amendment.

(Pub. L. 115–254, div. E, §1312, Oct. 5, 2018, 132 Stat. 3483.)
### §6401. Findings

The Congress finds that—

(1) propane gas, or liquefied petroleum gas, is an essential energy commodity providing heat, hot water, cooking fuel, and motor fuel among its many uses to millions of Americans;

(2) the use of propane is especially important to rural citizens and farmers, offering an efficient and economical source of gas energy;

(3) propane has been recognized as a clean fuel and can contribute in many ways to reducing the pollution in our cities and towns; and

(4) propane is primarily domestically produced and its use provides energy security and jobs for Americans.

(Pub. L. 104–284, §2, Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3370.)

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

#### Short Title of 2014 Amendment

Pub. L. 113–269, §1, Dec. 18, 2014, 128 Stat. 2947, provided that: "This Act [amending sections 6404 and 6408 of this title] may be cited as the 'Propane Education and Research Enhancement Act of 2014'."

#### Short Title

Pub. L. 104–284, §1, Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3370, provided that: "This Act [enacting this chapter] may be cited as the 'Propane Education and Research Act of 1996'."
# C_2011152EN.01002102.xml

| 21.5.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 152/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.5.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 152/21

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 8 April 2011 — Xeda International v Commission

(Case T-71/10 R)

(Application for interim measures - Directive 91/414/EEC - Decision concerning the non-inclusion of diphenylamine in Annex I to Directive 91/414 - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Lack of urgency)

2011/C 152/39

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Xeda International SA (Saint-Andiol, France) (represented by: C. Mereu, K. Van Maldegem, lawyers, and P. Sellar, Solicitor)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Bianchi and L. Parpala, Agents, assisted by J. Stuyck, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application, essentially, for suspension of operation of Commission Decision 2009/859/EC of 30 November 2009 concerning the non-inclusion of diphenylamine in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance (OJ 2009 L 314, p. 79) pending judgment in the main proceedings.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | Costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Costs are reserved.

---
#### William J. McGahie, Respondent, v. Sarah E. Fahrenholz, Appellant.

Judgment of the Municipal Court affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Jenks, Hooker, Gaynor, Rich and Miller, JJ., concurred.
#### § 367.83 Training costs.

When it is necessary that employees be trained to specifically operate or maintain facilities that are being constructed, the related costs must be accounted for as a current operating and maintenance expense. These expenses must be charged to the appropriate functional accounts currently as they are incurred. However, when the training costs involved relate to facilities that are not conventional in nature, or are new to the service company's operations, these costs may be capitalized until the time that the facilities are ready for functional use.