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

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


         In connection with the Quarterly Report of Stonewall  Financial,  Ltd.,
on Form  10-QSB  for the  period  ending  December  31,  2002 as filed  with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof (the  "REPORT"),  the
undersigned, B. Stephen Bailey, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Accounting
Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to ss. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  that to the best of my
knowledge and belief:

         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 result of  operations of the
Company.


Date: April 19, 2004

/s/ B. Stephen Bailey
B. Stephen Bailey
President
(Principal Executive & Accounting 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
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.
§ 115.335 Specialized training: Medical and mental health care. ( a ) The agency shall ensure that all full- and part-time medical and mental health care practitioners who work regularly in its facilities have been trained in: ( 1 ) How to detect and assess signs of sexual abuse and sexual harassment;
( 2 ) How to preserve physical evidence of sexual abuse;
( 3 ) How to respond effectively and professionally to juvenile victims of sexual abuse and sexual harassment; and
( 4 ) How and to whom to report allegations or suspicions of sexual abuse and sexual harassment.
( b ) If medical staff employed by the agency conduct forensic examinations, such medical staff shall receive the appropriate training to conduct such examinations.
( c ) The agency shall maintain documentation that medical and mental health practitioners have received the training referenced in this standard either from the agency or elsewhere.
( d ) Medical and mental health care practitioners shall also receive the training mandated for employees under § 115.331 or for contractors and volunteers under § 115.332, depending upon the practitioner's status at the agency.
EXHIBIT 10.64
                                 PAILLA M. REDDY
                                  7 OSER AVENUE
                            HAUPPAUGE, NY 11788-3808

Advanced Nutraceuticals, Inc.
106 S. University Boulevard, #14
Denver, CO  80209

Attention: Gregory Pusey, President

Dear Greg:

This letter shall  constitute a Conversion  Notice  pursuant to Section 3 of the
Additional Terms and Conditions of the Subordinated  Convertible Promissory Note
dated  November  17,  2001 (the  "Note").  I elect to convert  $1,124,849.32  of
principal and interest owed to me pursuant to the Note into 2,045,181  shares of
the  common  stock  (the  "Securities")of  Advanced  Nutraceuticals,  Inc.  (the
"Company").  I understand that, as a result of this conversion,  ANI will owe me
pursuant to the Note $500,000, plus interest, which will accrue after August 26,
2002. I confirm to you the following representations:

1.   The  Securities to be issued will be evidenced by a certificate  which will
     have imprinted on its face a "restricted" legend noting that the securities
     have not been  registered  under  the U.S.  securities  laws and may not be
     resold except  pursuant to an effective  registration  statement  under the
     U.S.  Securities  Act of 1933  (the  "Securities  Act") or  pursuant  to an
     exemption from registration, the availability of which is to be established
     to the Company's satisfaction. I will not sell or otherwise transfer any of
     the Securities unless registered or pursuant to an exemption;

2.   The Company will lodge "stop transfer" instructions in its transfer records
     concerning the "restricted" nature of the securities to be issued;

3.   I have no knowledge of any legal restrictions  applicable to me which would
     preclude the issuance of the shares to me;

4.   I am acquiring the  Securities for my own account and will not be acquiring
     the shares pursuant to a plan to resell or otherwise distribute the shares;

5.   I have the legal right and power to acquire the  Securities and to make the
     representations to the Company in this letter.

6.   I have had the opportunity to review information  regarding the Company and
     have had the  opportunity  to ask  questions  of and receive  answers  from
     representatives  of the  Company and to obtain any  additional  information
     desired by me.

                                                     Sincerely yours,


Dated as of August 26, 2002                          /s/ Pailla M. Reddy
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                     Pailla M. Reddy
Enclosures

cc:  Robert M. Bearman
### §6208. Limitations on judicial review

#### (a) Determinations

Determinations made under paragraphs (1) and (3) of section 6207(a) of this title shall not be subject to judicial review.

#### (b) Citations to and descriptions of confidentiality laws

Whether an antitrust mutual assistance agreement satisfies section 6211(2)(C) of this title shall not be subject to judicial review.

#### (c) Rules of construction

#### (1) Administrative Procedure Act

The requirements in section 6206 of this title with respect to publication and request for public comment shall not be construed to create any availability of judicial review under chapter 7 of title 5.

#### (2) Laws referenced in section 6204 of this title

Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the availability of judicial review under laws referred to in section 6204 of this title.

(Pub. L. 103–438, §9, Nov. 2, 1994, 108 Stat. 4602.)
(40 South. 41.)

No. 15,593.

#### MARTIN et al. v. TELLOTTE et al.

(Dec. 4, 1905.)

1. Couets — Pleading — Jurisdictional ' Facts.

It suffices that the jurisdictional facts appear from the evidence. They need not necessarily appear from the pleadings.

2. Injunction — Dissolution—Liability on

Bond.

Where the cutting of timber is enjoined, and the injunction is bonded, and after trial on the merits is dissolved, attorney’s fees and other expenses relating distinctly to the bonding of the injunction may be allowed as damages.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Appeal from Judicial District Court, Parish of Terrebonne; Louis Philip Caillouet, Judge.

Action by Francis Martin and others against Joseph C. Tellotte and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiffs appeal.

Affirmed.

Suthon, Wallis & Wuozlow and J. Zach Spearing, for appellants. Howell & Martin, l’or appellees.

PROYOSTY, J.

An injunction sued out by plaintiffs to prevent the cutting of timber on lands that plaintiffs erroneously thought to be theirs was first set aside on bond, and then, after trial, dissolved. Defendant Eells, to whom the land belonged, claimed $2,500 damages; and defendant Tellotte, who was cutting the timber under contract with Eells, claimed $1,800 damages. The court disallowed damages, except $250 for attorney’s fees and $35 for traveling expenses incurred by Eells in going to see his lawyer and preparing for the defense.

The appeal is being prosecuted by the plaintiffs. Defendants have moved to dismiss, on the ground that the amount in dispute is, not shown to exceed $2,000. In the alternative, defendants pray for an increase of damages.

The motion to dismiss must be denied. True, the petition fails to put a value upon the land in dispute; but the evidence does, and that suffices.

On the merits the judgment must be affirmed. The counsel fees and expenses allowed as damages were those relating distinctly to the bonding of the injunction. Adam Bros. v. Gomila & Co. et al„ 37 La. Ann. 479; Succession of P. G. Quin, 37 La. Ann. 391; Gabriel Rawitzky v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co., 40 La. Ann. 47, 3 South. 387. On the other hand, the dismissal of the claim for damages as in case of nonsuit was clearly correct under the evidence.

Judgment affirmed.
### §6107. Enforcement of orders

#### (a) General authority

Subject to subsections (b) and (c), the Federal Trade Commission may bring a criminal contempt action for violations of orders of the Commission obtained in cases brought under section 53(b) of this title.

#### (b) Appointment

An action authorized by subsection (a) may be brought by the Federal Trade Commission only after, and pursuant to, the appointment by the Attorney General of an attorney employed by the Commission, as a special assistant United States Attorney.

#### (c) Request for appointment

#### (1) Appointment upon request or motion

A special assistant United States Attorney may be appointed under subsection (b) upon the request of the Federal Trade Commission or the court which has entered the order for which contempt is sought or upon the Attorney General's own motion.

#### (2) Timing

The Attorney General shall act upon any request made under paragraph (1) within 45 days of the receipt of the request.

#### (d) Termination of authority

The authority of the Federal Trade Commission to bring a criminal contempt action under subsection (a) expires 2 years after the date of the first promulgation of rules under section 6102 of this title. The expiration of such authority shall have no effect on an action brought before the expiration date.

(Pub. L. 103–297, §9, Aug. 16, 1994, 108 Stat. 1550.)
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A18A0222. GARY HARRIS v. ROBBIE TUCKER.

Gary Harris sued Robbie Tucker in magistrate court. Following an adverse

ruling, Harris appealed to superior court, which entered judgment in favor of Tucker. 

Harris filed a motion for new trial, which the superior court denied. Harris then filed

this direct appeal. We lack jurisdiction.

Because the order at issue disposes of a de novo appeal from a magistrate court

decision, Harris was required to follow the discretionary appeal procedures. See

OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (1); English v. Delbridge, 216 Ga. App. 366, 367 (454 SE2d 175)

(1995). Harris’s failure to do so deprives us of jurisdiction over this appeal. 

Accordingly, this appeal is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

September 06, 2017

09/06/2017
Exhibit 12.1


                                 CERTIFICATION

     I, Mario Eduardo Vazquez, certify that:

     1.   I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of TELEFONICA DE
          ARGENTINA S.A.;

     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 officers and I are responsible for
          establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
          defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)) for the company 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
               company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known
               to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
               period in which this report is being prepared;

          (b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the company's disclosure controls
               and procedures and presented in this 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 report any change in the company's internal
               controls that occurred during the period covered by the annual
               report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
               materially affect, the company's internal controls; and

     5. The company's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation, to the company's auditors and the audit committee
of the company's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

          (a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
               design or operation of internal controls which are reasonably
               likely to adversely affect the company'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 company's
               internal control over financial reporting.

     Date: April 6, 2005

By: /s/ Mario Eduardo Vazquez
    -----------------------------------------
Name:  Mario Eduardo Vazquez
Title: Chairman
### SUBCHAPTER LXXVIII—BIGHORN CANYON NATIONAL RECREATION AREA
No. 98-50402

-1-

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-50402

Summary Calendar

 

WILLIAM WALLACE CAMPBELL,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

PRICILLA MILES, Chief Classification Officer;

GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF 

CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION; S.O. WOODS

Classifications, Director of State Classification and 

Records Bureau,

Defendants-Appellants.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. SA-97-CV-692

- - - - - - - - - -

December 23, 1998

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Patricia Miles, S.O. Woods, and Gary Johnson appeal the

magistrate judge’s order denying their motion for summary judgment

asserting the defense of qualified immunity to William Wallace

Campbell’s civil-rights action alleging that the defendants failed

to protect him from assault by other inmates. 

Because the summary judgment evidence shows that there is no

genuine issue with respect to the extent of Johnson’s personal
No. 98-50402

-2-

involvement in the alleged constitutional deprivation and because

those actions were not unreasonable, the magistrate judge’s order

is reversed as to Johnson. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825,

837, 847 (1994); Neals v. Norwood, 59 F.3d 530, 533 (5th Cir.

1995). 

As to Miles and Woods, however, the magistrate judge correctly

concluded that there were genuine issues of material fact with

respect to the extent of their knowledge of the risk of harm faced

by Campbell. For that reason, the denial of summary judgment as to

Miles and Woods is not an appealable interlocutory order and that

portion of the appeal must be DISMISSED. See Lampkin v. City of

Nacogdoches, 7 F.3d 430, 431 (5th Cir. 1993); see Johnson v. Jones,

515 U.S. 304, 315-316 (1995).

REVERSED IN PART; APPEAL DISMISSED IN PART.
§ 16.23 Failure to file timely notices of intent. ( a ) An existing licensee of a water power project with a license subject to sections 14 and 15 of the Federal Power Act that fails to file a notice of intent pursuant to § 16.6(b) by the deadlines specified in § l6.6(c) shall be deemed to have filed a notice of intent indicating that it does not intend to file an application for new license, nonpower license, or exemption.
( b ) An existing licensee of a water power project with a license not subject to sections 14 and 15 of the Federal Power Act that fails to file a notice of intent pursuant to § 16.6(b) by the deadlines specified in § 16.20(c) shall be deemed to have filed a notice of intent indicating that it does not intend to file an application for subsequent license or exemption.
STAKEHOLDER ANNOUNCEMENT

USDA Invites Applications for Grants to Strengthen Rural Cooperatives and 

Expand Access to New and Better Markets for People in Rural America

WASHINGTON, April 4, 2024 – U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural Development Under 

Secretary Dr. Basil Gooden today announced that USDA is inviting applications for grants to strengthen rural 

cooperatives and expand access to new and better markets for people in rural America. 

USDA is making the $5.8 million in grants available under the Rural Cooperative Development Grant (RCDG)

program to start, improve or expand rural cooperatives and other mutually owned businesses that will help 

improve economic conditions in rural areas. 

Nonprofit organizations and institutions of higher education are eligible to apply for grants to provide technical 

and cooperative development assistance to individuals and rural businesses. The maximum award is $200,000. 

USDA is particularly interested in applications that will advance Biden-Harris Administration priorities to:

• Reduce climate pollution and increase resilience to the impacts of climate change through economic 

support to rural communities.

• Ensure all rural residents have equitable access to Rural Development (RD) programs and benefits from 

RD-funded projects; and 

• Help rural communities recover economically through more and better market opportunities and through 

improved infrastructure.

Additional information on these key priorities is available at https://www.rd.usda.gov/priority-points.

Electronic applications must be submitted to grants.gov by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on June 3, 2024. 

Interested applicants are encouraged to contact their local USDA Rural Development State Office well in 

advance of the application deadline to discuss their project and ask any questions about the RCDG program or 

the application process. Contact information for state offices can be found at http://www.rd.usda.gov/contactus/state-offices.

Additional information on the required materials and how to apply for the RCDG program are available on page 

23551 of the April 4, 2024, Federal Register.

If you’d like to subscribe to USDA Rural Development updates, visit our GovDelivery subscriber page.

###

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
**Exhibit 32**

 

**Certification Accompanying Periodic Report**

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

**(18 U.S.C. ss. 1350)**

 

 

 

The undersigned, Samuel Martin, President and Chief Executive Officer of The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc. (‘‘Company’’), and Frederic F. Brace, Chief Administrative Officer, Chief Restructuring Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies that (1) the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K/A for the period ended February 26, 2011 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 the results of operations of the Company.

 

 

 
| Dated:   June 24, 2011 | /s/   Samuel Martin                |
|-----------------------------|------------------------------------|
|                        | Samuel   Martin                    |
|                        | President   and                    |
|                        | Chief   Executive Officer          |
|                        |                               |
|                        |                               |
|                        |                               |
|                        |                               |
| Dated:   June 24, 2011 | /s/   Frederic F. Brace            |
|                        | Frederic   F. Brace                |
|                        | Chief Administrative Officer,      |
|                        | Chief   Restructuring Officer, and |
|                        | Chief   Financial Officer          |

 

----
## Breadcrumb

-  Justice.gov 
-  Civil Division 
-  About  
-  Branches, Sections, and Offices 
-  Office of Immigration Litigation 
-  Appellate Section 
-  Office of Immigration Litigation Links 

MENU                            Appellate Section                          
                        -  Links 
                        -  Contact the Section 
                        -  Padilla Monograph 

# Office of Immigration Litigation Links

                      -  Facebook 
                      -  X 
                      -  LinkedIn 
                      -  Email 

**Websites and Information:**

Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR)

U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS)

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS)

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)

U.S. Department of State

U.S. Department of State: Visa Bulletin      

## Immigration Litigation Bulletin

The Immigration Litigation Bulletin is an internal publication covering immigration litigation matters. The publication keeps litigating attorneys within the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security informed about immigration litigation matters and increases  information sharing between the field offices and the Department of Justice headquarters. The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the Office of Immigration Litigation or of the Department of Justice.The following issues of the Immigration Litigation Bulletin have been released pursuant to a Freedom Of Information Act request: