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 Annual  Report of Pro Tech  Communications,  Inc.  ("Pro
Tech") on Form 10-K for the period  ending  December  31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof (the  "Report"),  we,
Richard Hennessey,  President, and Mary Christian-Hein,  Chief Financial Officer
of Pro Tech,  each  certify,  pursuant  to 18 U.S.C.  Section  1350,  as adopted
pursuant to Section 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 results of operations
          of Pro Tech.



/s/ RICHARD HENNESSEY
-----------------------
Richard Hennessey
President
March 23, 2006


/s/ MARY CHRISTIAN-HEIN
-----------------------
Mary Christian-Hein
Chief Financial Officer
March 23, 2006
Exhibit 99.14

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Tonga Capital Corp (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the period  ending  March 31, 2003 as filed with the  Securities
and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the  "Report").  I , Roger Juhnke,
Chief  Executive  Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 USC 1350, as
adopted pursuant to 906 of the  Sarbancs-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 results of operations
          of the Company.



                                     /s/ Roger Juhnke
                                     Roger Juhnke, Chief Executive Officer &
                                                   Chief Financial Officer

Dated: May 20, 2003
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6088
ROGER SYNTELL LEGETTE, Petitioner - Appellant, v. ANTHONY PADULA, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (6:07-cv-00633-HMH) Submitted: May 29, 2008 Decided: June 4, 2008 Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Roger Syntell Legette, Appellant Pro Se. Samuel Creighton Waters, Donald John Zelenka, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Roger Syntell Legette seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition as untimely. 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 Legette 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
#### § 20.32 Disclosure of Food and Drug Administration employee names.

The names of Food and Drug Administration employees will not be deleted from disclosable records except where such deletion is necessary to prevent disclosure of an informant or danger to the life or physical safety of the employee or under other extraordinary circumstances.
# L_2018316EN.01000301.xml

| 13.12.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 316/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.12.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 316/3

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2018/1964

of 6 December 2018

conferring protection under Article 99 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the name ‘Uhlen Blaufüsser Lay’/‘Uhlen Blaufüßer Lay’ (PDO)

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (1), and in particular Article 99 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | In accordance with Article 97(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, the Commission has examined the application to register the name ‘Uhlen Blaufüsser Lay’/‘Uhlen Blaufüßer Lay’ sent by Germany and has published it in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

In accordance with Article 97(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, the Commission has examined the application to register the name ‘Uhlen Blaufüsser Lay’/‘Uhlen Blaufüßer Lay’ sent by Germany and has published it in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | No statement of objection has been received by the Commission under Article 98 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

No statement of objection has been received by the Commission under Article 98 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013.

| (3) | In accordance with Article 99 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, the name ‘Uhlen Blaufüsser Lay’/‘Uhlen Blaufüßer Lay’ should be protected and entered in the register referred to in Article 104 of that Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

In accordance with Article 99 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, the name ‘Uhlen Blaufüsser Lay’/‘Uhlen Blaufüßer Lay’ should be protected and entered in the register referred to in Article 104 of that Regulation.

| (4) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for the Common Organisation of the Agricultural Markets, |
| --- | --- |

(4)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for the Common Organisation of the Agricultural Markets,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name ‘Uhlen Blaufüsser Lay’/‘Uhlen Blaufüßer Lay’ (PDO) is hereby protected.

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, 6 December 2018.

For the Commission,

On behalf of the President,

Phil HOGAN

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 671.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 277, 7.8.2018, p. 3.

2

---
NO. 12-14-00028-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

IN RE:

PHIL CAULEY

§

§

§

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

On July 23, 2014, this court delivered an opinion conditionally granting the petition for 

writ of mandamus filed by Relator, Phil Cauley. That opinion directed Respondent to vacate his 

order signed on December 13, 2013, granting the petition requesting Cauley’s presuit deposition, 

which was filed by Real Party in Interest, Efficien Technology, L.L.C. On August 7, 2014, 

Respondent complied with our July 23, 2014 opinion and order.

All issues attendant to this original proceeding having been disposed of, this mandamus 

proceeding has now been rendered moot; therefore, the writ need not issue. Accordingly, this 

original proceeding is dismissed as moot.

Opinion delivered August 20, 2014.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(PUBLISH)
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

AUGUST 20, 2014

NO. 12-14-00028-CV

IN RE: PHIL CAULEY,

Appellant

V.

,

Appellee

Original Proceeding from the County Court at Law No 2 

of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 62,356-A)

ON THIS DAY came to be heard the petition for writ of mandamus filed 

by PHIL CAULEY, who is the defendant in Cause No. 62,356-A, pending on the docket of the 

County Court at Law #2, Smith County, Texas. Said petition for writ of mandamus having been 

filed herein on January 23 2014, and the same having been duly considered, it is therefore 

CONSIDERED, ADJUDGED and ORDERED that the said petition for writ of mandamus be, 

and the same is, hereby DISMISSED AS MOOT.

By per curiam opinion.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


 <PAGE>
 <ARTICLE> 5
 <LEGEND>
 This Schedule contains summary financial
 information extracted from the financial
 statements contained in the body of the
 accompanying Form 10-K and is qualified in
 its entirety by reference to such financial
 statements.
 </LEGEND>
 <MULTIPLIER>                  1,000

 <S>                           <C>
 <PERIOD-TYPE>                 Year
 <FISCAL-YEAR-END>             Dec-31-1996
 <PERIOD-END>                  Dec-31-1996
 <CASH>                        8,723
 <SECURITIES>                  0
 <RECEIVABLES>                 3,229
 <ALLOWANCES>                  2,245
 <INVENTORY>                   1,021
 <CURRENT-ASSETS>              11,495
 <PP&E>                        2,462
 <DEPRECIATION>                723
 <TOTAL-ASSETS>                13,789
 <CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         7,867
 <BONDS>                       2,619
 <PREFERRED-MANDATORY>         0
 <PREFERRED>                   0
 <COMMON>                      28
 <OTHER-SE>                    2,946
 <TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  13,789
 <SALES>                       4,953
 <TOTAL-REVENUES>              4,953
 <CGS>                         6,767
 <TOTAL-COSTS>                 19,065
 <OTHER-EXPENSES>              140
 <LOSS-PROVISION>              0
 <INTEREST-EXPENSE>            295
 <INCOME-PRETAX>               (21,034)
 <INCOME-TAX>                  0
 <INCOME-CONTINUING>           (21,034)
 <DISCONTINUED>                0
 <EXTRAORDINARY>               0
 <CHANGES>                     0
 <NET-INCOME>                  (21,034)
 <EPS-PRIMARY>                 (2.12)
 <EPS-DILUTED>                 (2.12)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 11.01

                       COMMUNITY CARE OF AMERICA, INC.

                      CALCULATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                 YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31,
                                                        ------------------------------------------
                                                            1994             1995           1996
                                                        ------------    ------------    ------------
<S>                                                     <C>             <C>             <C>          
Earnings (loss) before extraordinary charge .........   $    394,000    $  2,441,000    $(18,905,000)
Extraordinary charge, net of income taxes ...........             --        (992,000)             --
                                                        ------------    ------------    ------------
Net earnings (loss) .................................        394,000       1,449,000     (18,905,000)
8% cumulative dividends on redeemable preferred
stock, Series A .....................................       (653,000)       (408,000)             --
                                                        ------------    ------------    ------------
Net earnings (loss) applicable to common stock ......   $   (259,000)   $  1,041,000    $(18,905,000)
                                                        ============    ============    ============
Weighted average shares outstanding .................      2,041,154       3,859,586       7,384,697
Weighted average common stock equivalents
outstanding .........................................             --         980,871              --
                                                        ------------    ------------    ------------
 Total weighted average common stock and common stock
  equivalents outstanding ...........................      2,041,154       4,840,457       7,384,697
                                                        ============    ============    ============
Per common share:
 Earnings (loss) before extraordinary charge ........   $      (0.13)   $       0.42    $      (2.56)
 Net earnings (loss) ................................   $      (0.13)   $       0.22    $      (2.56)
</TABLE>


Note:  Common stock  equivalents of 1,591,387  shares and 514,365 shares in 1994
and  1996  respectively,  are not  considered  in the  weighted  average  shares
outstanding because their effect is anti-dilutive.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7421 

To amend Public Law 87–788 (commonly known as the McIntire-Stennis 

Cooperative Forestry Act; 16 U.S.C. 582a–7) to provide for equal treatment of the District of Columbia with respect to funds made available 

under that Act. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 20, 2024 

Ms. NORTON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Agriculture 

A BILL 

To amend Public Law 87–788 (commonly known as the 

McIntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry Act; 16 U.S.C. 

582a–7) to provide for equal treatment of the District 

of Columbia with respect to funds made available under 

that Act. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘McIntire-Stennis Act 

5 District of Columbia Equality Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 7421 IH

1 SEC. 2. INCLUSION OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FOR PUR2 POSES OF FUNDING UNDER MCINTIRE-STEN3 NIS COOPERATIVE FORESTRY ACT. 

4 Section 8 of Public Law 87–788 (commonly known 

5 as the McIntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry Act; 16 

6 U.S.C. 582a–7) is amended by inserting ‘‘the District of 

7 Columbia,’’ after ‘‘include’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
NO. 06
- 14 -00208- CR

STATE OF TEXAS § IN THE § VS. § 6TH COURT § TONY DEWAYNE CRAYTON § OF APPEALS

MOTION TO FILE LATE APPELLANT'S BRIEF TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF SAID COURT: Now comes Tony Dewayne Crayton, Appellant in the above styled and numbered cause, and moves this Court to grant an extension of time to file appellant's brief, pursuant to Rule 38.6 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, and for good cause shows the following:
1. This case is on appeal from the 8th Judicial District Court of Hopkins County, Texas.
2. The case below was styled the STATE OF TEXAS vs. Tony Dewayne Crayton, and numbered 1323670.
3. Appellant was convicted of Murder.
4. Appellant was assessed a sentence of 50 years on November 24, 2014.
5. Notice of appeal was given on November 24, 2014.
6. The clerk's record was filed on March 26, 2015; the reporter's record was filed on January 27, 2015. ACCEPTED 06-14-00208-CR SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS 7/13/2015 12:00:00 AM DEBBIE AUTREY

CLERK7. The appellate brief is presently due on July 8 , 2015

8. Appellant requests permission to file late brief

. 9. Appellant’s counsel was ordered to file the brief in this case by July 8,
2015

. 10. Appellant’s counsel’s mother was admitted into Hopkins County Memorial Hospital and had emergency appendectomy surgery on July 6, 2015

. 11. Appellant’s counsel’s mother suffered from complicat ions from the surgery and underwent a second surgery on July 10, 2015.
12. The unforeseen circumstance regarding Appellant’s counsel’s medical condition made him unable to work on the brief for several days leading up to and following the deadline for fili ng the brief.
13. Appellant files this motion not for the purpose of delay but to see that justice is done. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED , Appellant prays that this Court grant this Motion To File Late Appellant's Brief, and for such other and
further r elief as the Court may deem appropriate. Respectfully submitted, Martin Braddy Attorney at Law 121 Oak Avenue Suite A Sulphur Springs, Texas 75482 Tel: (903) 885

- 2040 Fax: (903) 500

- 2704By: /s/ Martin Braddy Martin Braddy State Bar No. 00796240 martin.braddy@verizon.net Attorney for Tony Dewayne Crayton

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that on July 11, 2015 , a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document was served on the District Attorney's Office, Hopkins County, 110 Main Street Sulphur Springs, Texas 75482, by E

- mail.

/s/ Martin Braddy Martin Braddy
Editorial Note on Part 184
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 184 appear at 66 FR 56035, Nov. 6, 2001; 66 FR 66742, Dec. 27, 2001; 68 FR 15355, Mar. 31, 2003; 69 FR 13717, Mar. 24, 2004; 70 FR 40880, July 15, 2005; 70 FR 67651, Nov. 8, 2005; and 81 FR 49897, July 29, 2016.

§ 184.1721 Sodium acetate. ( a ) Sodium acetate (C2H3O2Na, CAS Reg. No. 127-09-3 or C2H3O2Na·3H2O, CAS Reg. No. 6131-90-4) is the sodium salt of acetic acid and occurs naturally in plant and animal tissues. Sodium acetate may occur in either the anhydrous or trihydrated form. It is produced synthetically by the neutralization of acetic acid with sodium carbonate or by treating calcium acetate with sodium sulfate and sodium bicarbonate.
( b ) The ingredient meets the specifications of the Food Chemicals Codex, 3d Ed. (1981), pp. 272, 273 which is incorporated by reference. Copies are available from the National Academy Press, 2101 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20418, or available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html .*
( c ) The ingredient is used as a flavoring agent and adjuvant as defined in § 170.3(o)(12) of this chapter; and as a pH control agent as defined in § 170.3(o)(23) of this chapter.
( d ) The ingredient is used in food at levels not to exceed current good manufacturing practice in accordance with 184.1(b)(1). Current good manufacturing practice results in a maximum level, as served, of 0.007 percent for breakfast cereals as defined in § 170.3(n)(4) of this chapter; 0.5 percent for fats and oils as defined in § 170.3(n)(12) of this chapter; 0.6 percent for grain products and pastas as defined in § 170.3(n)(23) of this chapter and snack foods as defined in § 170.3(n)(37) of this chapter; 0.15 percent for hard candy as defined in § 170.3(n)(25) of this chapter; 0.12 percent for jams and jellies as defined in § 170.3(n)(28) of this chapter and meat products as defined in § 170.3(n)(29) of this chapter; 0.2 percent for soft candy as defined in § 170.3(n)(38) of this chapter; 0.05 percent for soups and soup mixes as defined in § 170.3(n)(40) of this chapter and sweet sauces as defined in § 170.3(n)(43) of this chapter.
( e ) Prior sanctions for this ingredient different from the uses established in this section do not exist or have been waived.
[47 FR 27815, June 25, 1982]
[No. 40325-7-I.

Division One.

November 3, 1997.]

#### Ruby I. Pollock, *Appellant,*v. Janice Goodrow, *Respondent.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 96-2-17202-2, George A. Finkle, J., entered February 7, 1997. *Affirmed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
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 annual report of Naturewell, Incorporated (the "Registrant") on Form 10-K for the period ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report") the undersigned 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 the best of my knowledge:
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       
|Dated:  December 4, 2009
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
         Name                                   State of Incorporation
         ----                                   ----------------------
<S>                                             <C>
         AGI Distribution, Inc.                 Nevada
</TABLE>