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 Centenary International Corporation
        (the
“Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2007, as filed with the
        Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
        I,  Hector
        A.
        Patron Costas, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
        to 18
        U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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.
 
 
 
 /s/
        Hector A. Patron Costas
 Hector
        A.
        Patron Costas
 Chief
        Executive Officer
 August
        8,
        2007
 
 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. The foregoing
        certifications are accompanying the Company's Form 10-QSB solely pursuant
        to
        section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
        section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and are not being
        filed as part of the Form 10-QSB or as a separate disclosure
        document.
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 73-6 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 1 of 24
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 73-6 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 2 of 24
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 73-6 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 3 of 24
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 73-6 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 4 of 24
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 73-6 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 5 of 24
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 73-6 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 6 of 24
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 73-6 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 7 of 24
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 73-6 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 8 of 24
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 73-6 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 9 of 24
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 73-6 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 10 of 24
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 73-6 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 11 of 24
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 73-6 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 12 of 24
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 73-6 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 13 of 24
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 73-6 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 14 of 24
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 73-6 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 15 of 24
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 73-6 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 16 of 24
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 73-6 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 17 of 24
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 73-6 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 18 of 24
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 73-6 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 19 of 24
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 73-6 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 20 of 24
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 73-6 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 21 of 24
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 73-6 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 22 of 24
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 73-6 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 23 of 24
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 73-6 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 24 of 24
OAO 247 (02/08) Order Regarding Motion for Sentence Reduction

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

United States of America )

)

)

)

)

)

v.

MARLIN PURIFOY Case No: 3:03cr150/RV

USM No: 005760-017

Date of Previous Judgment: April 9, 2004 Pro Se

(Use Date of Last Amended Judgment if Applicable) Defendant’s Attorney

Order Regarding Motion for Sentence Reduction Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)

Upon motion of : the defendant 9 the Director of the Bureau of Prisons 9 the court under 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(2) for a reduction in the term of imprisonment imposed based on a guideline sentencing range that has

subsequently been lowered and made retroactive by the United States Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 994(u), and having considered such motion,

IT IS ORDERED that the motion is:

: DENIED. 9 GRANTED and the defendant’s previously imposed sentence of imprisonment (as reflected in 

the last judgment issued) of months is reduced to .

I. COURT DETERMINATION OF GUIDELINE RANGE (Prior to Any Departures)

Previous Offense Level: 34 Amended Offense Level: 34

Criminal History Category: VI Criminal History Category: VI

Previous Guideline Range: 262 to 327 months Amended Guideline Range: 262 to 327 months

II. SENTENCE RELATIVE TO AMENDED GUIDELINE RANGE

9 The reduced sentence is within the amended guideline range.

: The previous term of imprisonment imposed was less than the guideline range applicable to the defendant at the time

of sentencing as a result of a departure or Rule 35 reduction.

9 Other (explain):

III. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

Because the defendant was subject to a mandatory minimum of 120 months imprisonment, defendant Purifoy is ineligible

for a sentence reduction. See United States v. Williams, 549, F.3d 1337, 1342 (11th Cir. 2008).

Except as provided above, all provisions of the judgment dated April 9, 2004 shall remain in effect.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Order Date: June 30, 2009 /s/ Roger Vinson

Judge’s signature

Effective Date: Roger Vinson, Senior United States District Judge

(if different from order date) Printed name and title

Case 3:03-cr-00150-RV Document 212 Filed 06/30/09 Page 1 of 1
**Exhibit 12**

** **

**155 East Tropicana, LLC**

**Computation of Ratio of Earnings toFixed Charges**

** **
| **Six months ended June 30,**             | ** ** | **2008**  | ** ** |
|------------------------------------------------|------------|-----------|------------|
|                                           |       |      |       |
| Earnings:                                      |       |      |       |
| Income from  operations before taxes on income |       | $         | 247,733    |   |
| Fixed charges  added to earnings               |       | 6,673,021 |       |
| Amortization of  capitalized interest          |       | 11,187    |       |
| Total earnings                                 |       | $         | 6,931,941  |   |
|                                           |       |      |       |
| Fixed Charges:                                 |       |      |       |
| Interest expense                               |       | $         | 6,673,021  |   |
| Total fixed  charges                           |       | $         | 6,673,021  |   |
|                                           |       |      |       |
| Ratio of  earnings to fixed charges            |       | 1.0       |       |

** **

----
52.232-37 Multiple Payment Arrangements.       As prescribed in 32.1110(e), insert the following clause:          Multiple Payment Arrangements (May 1999)          This contract or agreement provides for payments to the Contractor through several alternative methods. The applicability of specific methods of payment and the designation of the payment office(s) are either stated-                                       (a) 						            Elsewhere in this contract or agreement; or                                          (b) 						            In individual orders placed under this contract or agreement.                                 (End of clause)    **Parent topic:** 52.232 [Reserved]
# L_2014091EN.01000901.xml

| 27.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 91/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 91/9

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 309/2014

of 20 March 2014

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Aceite de la Comunitat Valenciana (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, Spain’s application to register the name ‘Aceite de la Comunitat Valenciana’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Spain’s application to register the name ‘Aceite de la Comunitat Valenciana’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Aceite de la Comunitat Valenciana’ should therefore be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Aceite de la Comunitat Valenciana’ should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name ‘Aceite de la Comunitat Valenciana’ (PDO) is hereby entered in the register.

The name referred to in the first paragraph identifies a product in Class 1.5. Oils and fats (butter, margarine, oil, etc.) of Annex II to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1898/2006 (3).

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, 20 March 2014.

For the Commission, On behalf of the President,

Dacian CIOLOȘ

Member of the Commission

---

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

1

(2)  
  OJ C 276, 25.9.2013, p. 9.

2

(3)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1898/2006 of 14 December 2006 laying down detailed rules of implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 369, 23.12.2006, p. 1).

3

---
§ 718.3 State committee responsibilities. ( a ) The State committee shall, with respect to county committees: ( 1 ) Take any action required of the county committee, which the county committee fails to take in accordance with this part;
( 2 ) Correct or require the county committee to correct any action taken by such committee, which is not in accordance with this part; or
( 3 ) Require the county committee to withhold taking any action which is not in accordance with this part.
( b ) The State committee shall submit to the Deputy Administrator requests to deviate from deductions prescribed in § 718.109, or the error amount or percentage for refunds of redetermination costs as prescribed in § 718.112.
[61 FR 37552, July 18, 1996, as amended at 80 FR 41994, July 16, 2015]
#### § 62.400 OMB control number assigned pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act.

The information collection and recordkeeping requirements of this part have been approved by OMB under 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35 and have been assigned OMB Control Numbers: 0581-0125, 0581-0128, 0581-0251, and 0581-0283.
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 294 

To strengthen the restrictions of the importation from BSE minimal-risk 

regions of meat, meat byproducts, and meat food products from bovines. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 3, 2005 

Mr. BURNS (for himself, Mr. NELSON of Nebraska, Mr. THUNE, Mr. THOMAS, 

Mr. HAGEL, Mr. ROBERTS, and Mr. BAUCUS) introduced the following 

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, 

Nutrition, and Forestry 

A BILL 

To strengthen the restrictions of the importation from BSE 

minimal-risk regions of meat, meat byproducts, and meat 

food products from bovines. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. RESTRICTIONS ON IMPORTATION FROM BSE 

4 MINIMAL-RISK REGIONS OF MEAT AND ELIGI5 BLE PRODUCTS FROM RUMINANTS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subsection (b), para7 graph (a) of section 94.19 of title 9, Code of Federal Reg8 ulations, as amended by the final rule issued by the Sec9 retary of Agriculture on January 4, 2005 (70 Fed. Reg. 
2 

•S 294 IS

1 551) (and any successor regulations), shall apply only to 

2 meat, meat byproducts, and meat food products derived 

3 from a bovine that is slaughtered at less than 30 months 

4 of age. 

5 (b) EXPANDED COVERAGE.—If the Secretary, in con6 sultation with appropriate officials in the minimal risk re7 gion described in section 94.18(a)(3) of such title 9, makes 

8 a determination that the region is in full compliance with 

9 a ruminant feed ban and other safeguards related to bo10 vine spongiform encephalopathy, the Secretary— 

11 (1) shall submit to the Committee on Agri12 culture of the House of Representatives and the 

13 Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry 

14 of the Senate a report on the determination; and 

15 (2) may promulgate regulations to allow para16 graph 9(a) of section 94.19 of such title 9 to apply 

17 to meat, meat byproducts, and meat food products 

18 derived from a class of bovines in the region that is 

19 determined by the Secretary by the regulations. 

Æ
Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter VIII
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 71-87K, 1621-1627.

Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter VIII
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 84 FR 45645, Aug. 30, 2019.

§ 800.48 Dismissal of request for official services. ( a ) *Conditions for dismissal* — ( 1 ) *General.* An agency or the Service shall dismiss requests for official services when ( i ) § 800.76 prohibits the requested service;
( ii ) performing the requested service is not practicable;
( iii ) the agency or the Service lacks authority under the Act or regulations; or
( iv ) sufficient information is not available to make an accurate determination.
( 2 ) *Original services.* A request for original services shall be dismissed if a reinspection, review of weighing, appeal inspection, or Board appeal inspection has been performed on the same lot at the same specified service point within 5 business days.
( 3 ) *Reinspection, appeal inspection, or Board appeal inspection services.* A request for a reinspection, appeal inspection, or Board appeal inspection service shall be dismissed when: ( i ) The kind and scope are different from the kind and scope of the last inspection service;
( ii ) The condition of the grain has undergone a material change;
( iii ) The request specifies a representative file sample and a representative file sample is not available,
( iv ) The applicant requests that a new sample be obtained and a new sample cannot be obtained; or
( v ) The service cannot be performed within 5 business days of the date of the last inspection date.
( 4 ) *Review of weighing services.* A request for review of weighing services shall be dismissed when the request ( i ) is filed before the weighing results have been released, or
( ii ) is filed more than 90 calendar days after the date of the original service.
( b ) *Procedure for dismissal.* When an agency or the Service proposes to dismiss a request for official services, the applicant shall be notified of the proposed action. The applicant will then be afforded reasonable time to take corrective action or to demonstrate there is no basis for the dismissal. If the agency or the Service determines that corrective action has not been adequate, the applicant will be notified again of the decision to dismiss the request for service, and any results of official services shall not be released.
(Secs. 8, 9, 10, 13 and 18, Pub. L. 94-582, 90 Stat. 2870, 2875, 2877, 2880, and 2884, 7 U.S.C. 79, 79a, 79b, 84, 87, and 87e)
[49 FR 30915, Aug. 2, 1984, as amended at 50 FR 45392, Oct. 31, 1985]
#### § 51.2854 Metric conversion table.

| Inches | Millimeters (mm) |
| --- | --- |
| 1/8 | 3.2 |
| 1/4 | 6.4 |
| 3/8 | 9.5 |
| 1/2 | 12.7 |
| 5/8 | 15.9 |
| 3/4 | 19.1 |
| 7/8 | 22.2 |
| 1 | 25.4 |
| 11/4 | 31.8 |
| 11/2 | 38.1 |
| 13/4 | 44.5 |
| 2 | 50.8 |
| 21/2 | 63.5 |
| 23/4 | 69.9 |
| 3 | 76.2 |
| 31/2 | 88.9 |
| 4 | 101.6 |
#### § 622.7 Notification under Executive Order 12372.

This program is covered under Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs” and 7 CFR Part 3015, Subpart V, “Intergovernmental Review of the Department of Agriculture Programs and Activities.” State processes or directly affected State, areawide, regional and local officials and entities have 60 days for comment starting from the date of submission of the application to the State Single Point of Contact.
MINUTES

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, SOUTHERN, DIVISION

HON. SUSAN RUSS WALKER, MAG JUDGE AT MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA

DATE COMMENCED: September 22, 2006 10:45

DATE COMPLETED: September 22, 2006 11:00

WAYNE BLACK *

vs * 1:03cr734-MEF

LAMAR GLOVER, COMMANDER BOWERS *

SGT. TURNER *

__________________________________________________________________________________________

PLAINTIFF APPEARANCES: DEFENDANT

*

Wayne Black, pro se * Gary Clayborn Sherrer

*

____________________________________________ *____________________________________________

COURT OFFICIALS PRESENT:

Joyce Taylor, Courtroom Deputy

PROCEEDINGS:

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE

10:45 a.m. Telephone conference begins.

Court informs plaintiff that each subpoena issued should include witness fee of $40.00

per day and mileage of 44 1⁄2 cents per mile each way and that if money not included

with subpoenas witnesses are not required to attend and subpoena does not have to be

obeyed.

Court's discussions with plaintiff as to how many miles away each witness is from the

courthouse and an estimate as to how much mileage would be for each witness.

Court discussions with plaintiff that money has to be supplied before subpoenas can be

issued.

Court states that subpoenas could be held until Tuesday if plaintiff wants to send in

money or Court can direct that subpoenas be issued now without fees.

Plaintiff states he wants subpoenas issued now.

Plaintiff states he will not be able to get any money for fees and mileage.

Plaintiff states again that he wants subpoenas sent out now.

Court's discussions with plaintiff regarding need for fees.

Court's further statements to plaintiff regarding money for subpoenas.

Plaintiff again states he wants Court to go ahead and send out subpoenas now without

fees attached.

11:00 a.m. Court recessed.

Case 1:03-cv-00734-MEF-SRW Document 33 Filed 09/22/2006 Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. Case No.: 3:04cr10/MCR

 3:11cv152/MCR/EMT

DAVID W. SVETE

_________________________________/

O R D E R

This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge’s Report and

Recommendation dated June 7, 2011 (Doc. 1031). The parties have been furnished a

copy of the Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an opportunity to file

objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). No objections have

been filed.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation and the record, I have

determined that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and

incorporated by reference in this order.

2. The Government’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 1017) is DENIED.

3. The Government is directed to respond to the merits of Defendant’s motion 

within thirty (30) days from the date of this order.

DONE AND ORDERED this 26th day of August, 2011.

M. Casey Rodgers

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

 )

 v. ) CR. NO. 2:06-cr-169-WKW

 )

WILLIAM EARL ULMER )

O R D E R

Upon consideration of the government's motion for release of prisoner (Doc. # 196), filed

on April 17, 2007, and for good cause, it is ORDERED that the motion be and hereby is GRANTED.

It is hereby ORDERED that the United States Marshals Service release custody of William

Earl Ulmer, to Todd Mims, DEA, and/or Doug Walters, DEA, on April 18, 2007, through July 18,

2007, so that said agents can take such prisoner into custody without the necessity of the presence

of a Deputy United States Marshal.

It is further ORDERED that Todd Mims, DEA, and/or Doug Walters, DEA, return said

prisoner into the custody of the United States Marshals Service when they have finished with him.

Done, this 17th day of April, 2007.

/s/ Susan Russ Walker 

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cr-00169-WKW-SRW Document 197 Filed 04/17/2007 Page 1 of 1
**CERTIFICATIONS

I, Lawrence A. Heilbronner, certify that:
1.
I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Canandaigua National Corporation and Subsidiaries;
2.
Based on my knowledge, this 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 report; 
3.
Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this 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 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 disclosures 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 report is being prepared;  
(b)
Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant'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 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 registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):  
(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.

November 7, 2003 
/s/ Lawrence A. Heilbronner
Date 
Lawrence A. Heilbronner, Principal Financial and  
Accounting Officer**