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

                 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

      In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of VPGI Corp.
 (the "Company") for the period ended September 30, 2004, as filed with the
 Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
 Patrick A. Custer, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer
 of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. S1350, as adopted pursuant to
 S906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

      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.


 November 19, 2004

                               /s/ PATRICK A. CUSTER
                               -------------------------
                               Patrick A. Custer
                               Chief Executive Officer
                               and Principal Financial Officer
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 Annual Report of Green Planet Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, in
the capacities and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:
  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 operation of the
Company.
 Date:
      July 16, 2009By:
                    /s/ James
      C. MarshallName:  James
      C. MarshallTitle: 
      Chief Financial Officer


A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authentications, 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 Green Planet Group,
Inc. and will be retained by Green Planet Group, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7412
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus SAID NOUHAD ADRA, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-93-187-A, CA-95-546-AM) Submitted: February 27, 1996 Decided: March 19, 1996 Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Said Nouhad Adra, Appellant Pro Se. Sarah Margaret Mortenson, David Joel Stander, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988) motion. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Adra , Nos. CR-93-187-A; CA-95-546-AM (E.D. Va. July 24, 1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court andargument would not aid the decisional process. The motion for appointment of counsel is denied.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT

TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the accompanying Annual Report of Portman Ridge Finance Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021 (the “Report”), I, Edward Goldthorpe, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)	The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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: March 10, 2022

  | By:    |   | /S/ EDWARD GOLDTHORPE                 |
|                         |   |   | Edward Goldthorpe                     |
|                         |   |   | President and Chief Executive Officer |
|                         |   |   | (Principal Executive Officer)         |

 

 

----
#### FTL Company, Inc., Respondent, v Chase Manhattan Bank, N. A., Appellant.

Order of the Supreme Court, New York County, entered February 27, 1980, which denied defendant-appellant’s motion for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint of plaintiff-respondent on the ground of *res judicata*and collateral estoppel, unanimously affirmed, with costs. The inadequacy of the record, particularly the lack of reasons for the reduction of plaintiff-respondent’s claim against the shipper Interstate from $34,355.43 to $4,707.93 by the Bankruptcy Court, precludes us from determining on the merits whether the doctrine of collateral estoppel should be applied, as now contended by defendant-appellant. For the same reason—inadequacy of the record—we are unable to determine whether, as claimed by defendant-appellant, plaintiff-respondent has been paid in full so as to bar the present action. Concur—Birns, J. P., Fein, Sullivan, Lupiano and Bloom, JJ.
# 25.406 Israeli Trade Act.

*Acquisitions* of *supplies* by most agencies are covered by the Israeli Trade Act, if the estimated value of the *acquisition* is $50,000 or more but does not exceed the *WTO GPA* threshold for *supplies* (see 25.402(b)). Agencies other than the Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, the Department of Transportation, the Bureau of Reclamation of the Department of the Interior, the Federal Housing Finance Board, and the Office of Thrift Supervision *must* evaluate *offers* of *Israeli end products* without regard to the restrictions of the Buy American statute. The Israeli Trade Act does not prohibit the purchase of other *foreign end products*.

**Parent topic:**Subpart 25.4 - Trade Agreements
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. CASE NO. 1:94-cr-01009-MP-AK

JOHN RICHARD KNOCK,

Defendant.

___________________________/

O R D E R 

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 1139, Motion for Certificate of Appealability

(“COA”), which was construed from Defendant’s Notice of Appeal (Doc. 1133) Defendant

seeks to appeal this Court’s October 3, 2008, order (Doc. 1128) denying his motion to vacate for

failure to seek leave from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals before filing a second or

successive motion under § 2255. To obtain a COA when the district court has rejected a claim

on procedural grounds, the defendant must show that jurists of reason would find it debatable

whether (1) the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and (2) the

district court was correct in its procedural ruling. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. at 484; Franklin

v. Hightower, 215 F.3d 1196, 1199 (11th Cir. 2000) (per curiam). Defendant has failed to make 

Case 1:94-cr-01009-MP-GRJ Document 1143 Filed 01/09/09 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No: 1:94-cr-01009-MP-AK

this threshold showing. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. Defendant’s Motion for Certificate of Appealability, Doc. 1139, is DENIED. 

2. The Clerk is directed to forward a copy of this order and an updated docket sheet

to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

DONE AND ORDERED this 9th day of January, 2009

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 1:94-cr-01009-MP-GRJ Document 1143 Filed 01/09/09 Page 2 of 2
27.408 Cosponsored research and

development activities.

(a) In contracts involving cosponsored research and development that require the contractor to

make substantial contributions of funds or resources (e.g., by cost-sharing or by repayment of

nonrecurring costs), and the contractor’s and the Government’s respective contributions to any item,

component, process, or computer software, developed or produced under the contract are not

readily segregable, the contracting officer may limit the acquisition of, or acquire less than unlimited

rights to, any data developed and delivered under the contract. Agencies may regulate the use of

this authority in their supplements. Lesser rights shall, at a minimum, assure use of the data for

agreed-to Governmental purposes (including reprocurement rights as appropriate), and address any

disclosure limitations or restrictions to be imposed on the data. Also, consideration may be given to

requiring the contractor to directly license others if needed to carry out the objectives of the

contract. Since the purpose of the cosponsored research and development, the legitimate

proprietary interests of the contractor, the needs of the Government, and the respective

contributions of both parties may vary, no specific clauses are prescribed, but a clause providing less

than unlimited rights in the Government for data developed and delivered under the contract (such

as license rights) may be tailored to the circumstances consistent with the foregoing and the policy

set forth in 27.402. As a guide, a clause may be appropriate when the contractor contributes money

or resources, or agrees to make repayment of nonrecurring costs, of a value of approximately 50

percent of the total cost of the contract (i.e., Government, contractor, and/or third party paid costs),

and the respective contributions are not readily segregable for any work element to be performed

under the contract. A clause may be used for all or for only specifically identified tasks or work

elements under the contract. In the latter instance, its use will be in addition to whatever other data

rights clause is prescribed under this subpart, with the contract specifically identifying which clause

is to apply to which tasks or work elements. Further, this type of clause may not be appropriate

where the purpose of the contract is to produce data for dissemination to the public, or to develop or

demonstrate technologies that will be available, in any event, to the public for its direct use.

(b) Where the contractor’s contributions are readily segregable (by performance requirements and

the funding for the contract) and so identified in the contract, any resulting data may be treated

under this clause as limited rights data or restricted computer software in accordance with

27.404-2(c) or (d), as applicable; or if this treatment is inconsistent with the purpose of the contract,

rights to the data may, if so negotiated and stated in the contract, be treated in a manner consistent

with paragraph (a) of this section.

Parent topic: Subpart 27.4 - Rights in Data and Copyrights
REFERENCE; AOT A32L003-14

APPENDIX 3

MLG SIDESTAY CARDAN PIN – FLOW CHART
2006-0514.

#### In re Adkins.

Tuscarawas App. No. 2005AP06-0044, 2006-Ohio-431. Discretionary appeal accepted. In addition to Proposition of Law Nos. I and II, the parties are to brief and argue issues relating to rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution relevant to this cause.

Resnicic and Pfeifer, JJ., dissent.
# L_2013313EN.01003201.xml

| 22.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 313/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 313/32

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1184/2013

of 12 November 2013

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Prés-salés du Mont-Saint-Michel (PDO))

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, France’s application to register the name ‘Prés-salés du Mont-Saint-Michel’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, France’s application to register the name ‘Prés-salés du Mont-Saint-Michel’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | As no statement of objection under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Prés-salés du Mont-Saint-Michel’ should therefore be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no statement of objection under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Prés-salés du Mont-Saint-Michel’ should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 12 November 2013.

For the Commission, On behalf of the President,

Algirdas ŠEMETA

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 57, 27.2.2013, p. 19.

2

---

ANNEX

Agricultural products intended for human consumption listed in Annex I to the Treaty:

Class 1.1.   Fresh meat (and offal)

FRANCE

Prés-salés du Mont-Saint-Michel (PDO)

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                           5

<MULTIPLIER>                                                 1,000

<S>                                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                       3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                   JUN-30-2001
<PERIOD-START>                                      OCT-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                        DEC-31-2000
<CASH>                                                         837
<SECURITIES>                                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                8,534
<ALLOWANCES>                                                 1,740
<INVENTORY>                                                    332
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                             9,013
<PP&E>                                                      13,924
<DEPRECIATION>                                              12,693
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                              19,062
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                       11,010
<BONDS>                                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                            0
<PREFERRED>                                                  1,680
<COMMON>                                                       124
<OTHER-SE>                                                     177
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                19,062
<SALES>                                                      7,377
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                             7,377
<CGS>                                                        1,475
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                1,475
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                             5,807
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                             212
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                (40)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                   125
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                           (165)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                  0
<CHANGES>                                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                                  (165)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                  (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                (0.02)



</TABLE>
23.1104 Policy.

Agencies shall encourage contractors and subcontractors to adopt and enforce policies that ban text

messaging while driving-

(a) Company-owned or rented vehicles or Government-owned vehicles; or

(b) Privately-owned vehicles when on official Government business or when performing any work for

or on behalf of the Government.

Parent topic: Subpart 23.11 - Encouraging Contractor Policies to Ban Text Messaging While

Driving
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6517

MICHAEL KEITH PETTAWAY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

GENE M. JOHNSON, Director,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, Magistrate

Judge. (3:06-cv-00318-MHL)

Submitted: August 23, 2007 Decided: August 29, 2007

Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and WILKINS and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Keith Pettaway, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Drummond Bagwell,

Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Michael Keith Pettaway seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000)

petition. 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. Miller-El 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 Pettaway 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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

 

v. Case No. 3:20cr56-TKW

GREGORY FOUNTAIN JONES

/

ACCEPTANCE OF PLEA OF GUILTY

Pursuant to the Report and Recommendation of the Chief United States 

Magistrate Judge, to which there have been no timely objections, the plea of guilty 

of the Defendant, GREGORY FOUNTAIN JONES, to Counts One, Two, and Five 

of the indictment is hereby ACCEPTED. All parties shall appear before this Court 

for sentencing as directed.

DONE AND ORDERED this 11th day of December 2020. 

T. Kent Wetherell, II 

T. KENT WETHERELL, II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:20-cr-00056-TKW Document 96 Filed 12/11/20 Page 1 of 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 Annual Report of Terra Media, Ltd. on Form 10-K for the period ending  December 31, 2007 as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange Commission on the date hereof,  I, Thomas Monahan,  President and principal financial officer of the Company,  certify,  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 result of operations of the Company.  April 8, 2008 /S/    Thomas Monahan Thomas Monahan, Chairman of the Board, President, Principal Financial Officer, Treasurer, Secretary
# L_2020269EN.01004201.xml

| 17.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 269/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 269/42

---

Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1175 of 7 August 2020 concerning the authorisation of L-cysteine hydrochloride monohydrate produced by fermentation with Escherichia coli KCCM 80180 and Escherichia coli KCCM 80181 as a feed additive for all animal species

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 259 of 10 August 2020
  )

On page 8, Annex, last column of the table (End of period of authorisation):

for:

‘
  30.9.2030
  ’,

read:

‘
  30.8.2030
  ’.

---
§ 50.12 Summary suspension of service. ( a ) *General.* In any situation in which the integrity of grading or inspection service would be jeopardized if the grading or inspection service were continued pending a decision in a proceeding to withdraw grading or inspection service, such service to the respondent may be suspended effective on the third day after mailing of a written notice of the suspension of service to the respondent's last known address or designated address or upon actual receipt of the written notice, whichever is earlier.
( b ) *Actual or threatened physical violence.* In any case of actual or threatened physical violence to an inspector or grader, grading and inspection services to the respondent may be suspended prior to the transmittal of the written notice of suspension to the respondent. A written notice shall be given as promptly as circumstances permit.