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 Bio-One Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates 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:    March 24, 2004                     By: /s/ Armand Dauplaise
                                               ---------------------
                                            Name:    Armand Dauplaise
                                            Title:   Chief Executive 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 Bio-One Corporation and
will be retained by Bio-One Corporation and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Ira TUCKER, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 17993.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

May 27, 1960.

Charles V. Silliman, Gladstone L. Kohloss, Orlando, Fla., for appellant.

Don M. Stichter, Special Atty., Robert F. Nunez, Asst. U. S. Atty., Tampa, Fla., E. Coleman Madsen, U. S. Atty., Miami, Fla., for appellee.

Before TUTTLE, CAMERON and JONES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

 The appellant was convicted of possession of moonshine liquor. He appeals, saying the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction. Across the street from appellant’s residence is a “jook”, the Moonlight Club, operated by appellant’s wife with some help from him. Behind the Club was an open tract supposedly owned by a person identified only as “Pete the Tailor”. The appellant and two others were each permitted to keep hogs in separate pens on these premises and each had a nearby cooking machine for preparing food for his hogs. A deputy sheriff found nine gallon jugs of unstamped whiskey near the appellant’s cooking machine. The appellant was charged with its possession. The deputy testified that he had taken moonshine “off a lot of customers at the jook.” No more than this was adduced to identify the appellant with the liquor. It is not enough. No control or dominion of the contraband by the appellant is shown. Construing the evidence most favorably to the verdict, we conclude it does not sustain a verdict of guilt. The court should have directed an acquittal of the appellant. The judgment and sentence of the district court is reversed and a judgment of acquittal is here rendered for the appellant.

Reversed and rendered.
#### Stadt *v.*The State.

Violating Prohibition Law.

(Decided June 6, 1916.

72 South. 212.)

Appeal and Error; Review; Presentation Below. — Where the ground of a motion to exclude the testimony of the'State and direct a verdict for defendant, is so unintelligently stated as not to apprise the court as to the point sought to be raised, or to raise any point of law, it will not be reviewed on appeal.

Appeal from Jefferson Criminal Court.

Heard before Hon. Wm. E. Fort.

O. E. Stadt was convicted of violating the prohibition law, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

The matter presented is as follows:

“Mr. Glover: “I make a motion to exclude the testimony of the state and give a general charge for defendant on the ground that there is a variance between the indictment and the law governing; that the Fuller and Carmichael laws are still in force, except when actually rescinded by the Smith & Parks bills, and it was recently decided in a case that went up from this county, and has also been decided previously in 61 Southern Reporter. *117I will read from my copy: (Reads authority.) The court overruled the motion, defendant excepts.”

Mr. Glover, for appellant. W. L. Martin, Attorney General, and J. P. Mudd, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

PELHAM, P. J.

(1, 2) The defendant was charged with and convicted of selling spirituous, vinous, or malt liquors contrary to law. The record contains a bill of exceptions, but neither it nor any other part of the record presents any question for review. While the bill of exceptions contains a recital to the effect that at the conclusion of the evidence for the state the defendant’s counsel moved to exclude it and asked the court for the affirmative charge on the ground (quoting) “that there is a variance between the indictment and the law governing,” which motion and request the court denied, to which defendant excepted, yet, the ground of the motion and request so denied is so unintelligently stated as not to apprise either us or the lower court as to the point sought to be raised, and not to raise any point of law. Hence there is nothing to review. No demurrer was filed to the indictment, and none could successfully, have been, and the form employed was sufficient to cover an offense committed either during state-wide prohibition or local option *(Scott v. State,*3 Ala. App. 143, 57 South. 413), and fail, therefore, to see how, if this was the point attempted to be raised, there was any variance between the allegations of the indictment and the evidence offered to sustain it, which tended to show a sale; and this regardless of whether the law in force in Jefferson county at the time of the sale prohibited sales entirely or prohibited them except by licensed dealers. Defendant offered no proof tending to show that he was a licensed dealer. It was for the jury to say, under the evidence, whether he made the sale.

It follows that the judgment of conviction must be, and'is, affirmed.

Affirmed.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13

- 40844 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
RAUL GARZA, SR. ,
Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:12

- CR

- 1096

- 2

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
The attorney appointed to represent Raul Garza, Sr., has moved for leave
to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011).
Garza has filed a response. We hav e reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein , as well as Garza ’ s response . We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED May 21, 2014 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 13-40844 Document: 00512638409 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/21/2014No. 13

- 40844

appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion fo r leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the
APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2.

2 Case: 13-40844 Document: 00512638409 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/21/2014
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 87 (Thursday, May 4, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25944-25945]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-11112]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-37,451; TA-W-37,451A]


Cross Creek Apparel, Inc., Mt. Airy, and Walnut Cove, North 
Carolina; Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for 
Worker Adjustment Assistance

    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 
2273) the Department of Labor issued a Notice of Certification 
Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on 
April 4, 2000, applicable to workers of Cross Creek Apparel, Inc., Mt. 
Airy and Walnut Cove, North Carolina. The notice will be published soon 
in the Federal Register.
    At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the 
certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers produce knit 
apparel. New information shows that the Department inadvertently 
included the workers of the Mt Airy, North Carolina location of Cross 
Creek Apparel in its certification. Findings show that a previous 
certification, TA-W-35,750, was issued on March 17, 1999, covering the 
same worker group, who were engaged in employment related to the 
production of knit apparel. That certification expires March 17, 2001.
    Based on these findings, the Department is amending the 
certification to limit coverage to only

[[Page 25945]]

workers of Cross Creek Apparel, Walnut Cove, North Carolina.
    The intent of the Department''s certification is in include all 
workers of Cross Creek Apparel, Inc., Walnut Cove, North Carolina 
adversely affected by increased imports.
    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-37,451 is hereby issued as 
follows:

    ``All workers of Cross Creek Apparel, Walnut Cove, North 
Carolina who became totally or partially separted from employment on 
or after February 21, 1999 through April 4, 2002 are eligible to 
apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act 
of 1974.''


    Signed at Washington, D.C. this 20th day of April, 2000.
 
  
[FR Doc. 00-11112 Filed 5-3-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7130

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ROBERT KENNEDY, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Norman K. Moon, District Judge. (CR-01-725-NKM; CA-05-302-7) Submitted: November 17, 2005 Decided: November 28, 2005 Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Kennedy, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Joseph William Hooge Mott, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Robert Kennedy, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). 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 his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-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 Kennedy 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
EXHIBIT 10.1




 




 




Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley

Act 2002




 




I, Richard Alden, Chief Executive Officer of

Cableuropa, S.A.U., certify that to the best of my knowledge (i) the Form 20-F

related to 2002 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)

of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in

the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial

condition and results of operations of Cableuropa, S.A.U.




 




 




	

  By: 


  	

  /s/ Richard Alden


  
	

   


  	

   


  
	

  Name:


  	

  Richard Alden


  
	

  Title:


  	

  Chief Executive Officer


  
	

  Date:


  	

  May 9, 2003
###### Editorial Note on Part 302

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 302 appear at 84 FR 15935, Apr. 16, 2019.

#### § 302.507 Computing time for filing complaints.

In computing the time for filing formal complaints pursuant to § 302.506, with respect to tariffs that do not contain a posting date, the first day preceding the effective date of the tariff shall be the first day counted, and the last day so counted shall be the last day for filing unless such day is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday for the Department, in which event the period for filing shall be extended to the next successive day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or holiday. The computation of the time for filing complaints as to tariffs containing a posting date shall be governed by § 302.8.
1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BANKRUPTCY COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

In re:

PROMESA

THE FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND Title III

MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR PUERTO RICO, 

 as a representative of No. 17 BK 3283-LTS

THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO, et al. (Jointly Administered)

Debtors

 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

TO THE HONORABLE COURT:

NOW comes creditors MARTA VÁZQUEZ TORRES, NEFTALY MÉNDEZ VÁZQUEZ, 

JOSEPH NEGRÓN VÁZQUEZ, and the SUCCESSION of ARMANDO NEGRÓN VÁZQUEZ

comprised by his heirs, RAYMOND ARMANDO NEGRÓN LÓPEZ and ALONDRA JANISSE 

NEGRÓN SANTANA (represented by their respective mothers, YESENIA INÉS LÓPEZ OSORIO 

and KATHIRIA JANISSE SANTANA PONCE), all represented by the undersigned attorney, to 

state as follows.

That pursuant to provisions of Rule 9010(b) of Bankruptcy Procedure, the appearing party 

notifies that it has retained the legal services of Osvaldo Toledo Martinez whose address is:

Osvaldo Toledo Martínez

PO Box 190938

San Juan PR 00919-0938

E-Mail: toledo.bankruptcy@gmail.com

Telephone No.: (787) 756-6395

Fax No.: (787) 767-7965

WHEREFORE, the appearing party respectfully prays that the Clerk of the Court takes notice of 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3365 Filed:06/29/18 Entered:06/29/18 02:44:27 Desc: Main

Document Page 1 of 2
2

the appearance of the undersigned attorney and to notify him of all the proceedings in this case, 

including but not limited to copies of the petition, schedules, motions, and statements filed or to be filed 

in the above-referenced case and further prays that the name and address be added to the Master 

Address List kept in the above-captioned case.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and exact copy of the foregoing was filed electronically with 

the clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which in turn will send notification of such filing to all 

interested parties of record.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

At San Juan, Puerto Rico, this June 28, 2018.

/S/ Osvaldo Toledo Martínez

OSVALDO TOLEDO MARTÍNEZ, ESQ.

USDC No. 127905

PO Box 190938

San Juan PR 00919-0938

Tel: (787) 756-6395

Fax: (787) 767-7965

E-Mail: toledo.bankruptcy@gmail.com

Counsel for Creditors

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3365 Filed:06/29/18 Entered:06/29/18 02:44:27 Desc: Main

Document Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
MediQuik Services Inc.'s financial statements for the year ended December 31,
1999 and for the period from April 7, 1998 (date of incorporation) to December
31, 1998 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                         JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                           DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                     47,424
<SECURITIES>                                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                             230,937
<ALLOWANCES>                               88,702
<INVENTORY>                                21,737
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          210,856
<PP&E>                                     74,850
<DEPRECIATION>                             (7,215)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            421,898
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     882,687
<BONDS>                                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           0
<PREFERRED>                                     0
<COMMON>                                    6,033
<OTHER-SE>                               (466,822)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              421,898
<SALES>                                   982,292
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          982,292
<CGS>                                     724,605
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             724,605
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        4,030,868
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           88,702
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        (24,260)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        (3,780,279)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             0
<DISCONTINUED>                                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 0
<CHANGES>                                       0
<NET-INCOME>                             (378,279)
<EPS-BASIC>                                 (0.68)
<EPS-DILUTED>                               (0.68)



</TABLE>
Phone Log for Atrazine Special Review Docket Page 1 of 1

February 1 0 , 20 1 1 , afternoon

Dan Campbell of Syngenta and Melanie Biscoe of EPA/ OPP talked over the phone. During this conversation, Dan Campbell indicated th e atrazine well vulnerability study would be submitted at the end of April 2011 along w ith other studies being conducted by Syngenta.

Phone Log prepared by – Melanie Biscoe
#### STATE OF FLORIDA v SHARP

Case No. 89-0023-CA-AP-NpL

Seventh Judicial Circuit, Volusia County

November 15, 1990

OPINION OF THE COURT

Before KENNEDY, PATRICK G., Circuit Judge.

Before FOXMAN, S. JAMES, Circuit Judge.

The State of Florida appeals “a final order suppressing the Defendant’s breath test results”. The Appellant concedes that it has sought the improper remedy which should have been certiorari. Pursuant to Rule 9.040(c), Fla. R. App. P., we shall treat this appeal as if certiorari had properly been sought.

After review of the parties’ briefs and hearing oral argument, we find substantial factual findings by the trial court to support its order, and we therefore affirm the Order Granting Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Breath Test Results.

AFFIRMED.

On January 31, 1991, the Fifth District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida ordered that the Petition for Writ of Common Law Certiorari, filed January 11, 1991, be denied.
§ 151.85 Special treatment areas. The following special treatment for areas adjacent to pavement is eligible for inclusion in a project in cases where, due to the operation of turbojet powered aircraft, it may be necessary to treat those areas adjacent to runway ends, holding aprons, and taxiways to prevent erosion from the blast effects of the turbojet: ( a ) Runway ends—a stabilized area the width of the runway and extending 100 to 150 feet from the end of the runway.
( b ) Holding aprons—a stabilized area up to 50 feet from the edge of the pavement.
( c ) Taxiway intersections—a stabilized area 25 feet on each side of the taxiway and extending 300 feet from the intersection.
( d ) Taxiway (continuous movement of aircraft)—dense turf 25 feet on each side of the taxiway, or in a geographic area where dense turf cannot be established, stabilization.
§ 382.53 What information must carriers give individuals with a vision or hearing impairment at airports? ( a ) ( 1 ) As a U.S. carrier, you must ensure that passengers with a disability who identify themselves as persons needing visual or hearing assistance have prompt access to the same information provided to other passengers at each gate, ticketing area, and customer service desk that you own, lease, or control at any U.S. or foreign airport, to the extent that this does not interfere with employees' safety and security duties as set forth in FAA, TSA, and applicable foreign regulations.
( 2 ) As a foreign carrier, you must make this information available at each gate, ticketing area, and customer service desk that you own, lease, or control at any U.S. airport. At foreign airports, you must make this information available only at gates, ticketing areas, or customer service desks that you own, lease, or control and only for flights that begin or end in the U.S.
( 3 ) As a U.S. or foreign carrier, at any U.S. airport covered by this paragraph where the airport has effective control over the covered gates, ticketing areas, and customer service desks, you and the airport are jointly responsible for compliance.
( b ) The information you must provide under paragraph (a) of this section includes, but is not limited to, the following: Information concerning flight safety, ticketing, flight check-in, flight delays or cancellations, schedule changes, boarding information, connections, gate assignments, checking baggage, volunteer solicitation on oversold flights (*e.g.*, offers of compensation for surrendering a reservation), individuals being paged by airlines, aircraft changes that affect the travel of persons with disabilities, and emergencies (*e.g.*, fire, bomb threat).
( c ) With respect to information on claiming baggage, you must provide the information to passengers who identify themselves as persons needing visual or hearing assistance no later than you provide this information to other passengers.
[Doc. No. DOT-OST-2004-19482, 73 FR 27665, May 13, 2008, as amended at 74 FR 11471, Mar. 18, 2009]
§ 298.11 Exemption authority. Air taxi operators and commuter air carriers are hereby relieved from the following provisions of 49 U.S.C. Subtitle VII only if and so long as they comply with the provisions of this part and the conditions imposed herein, and to the extent necessary to permit them to conduct air taxi or commuter air carrier operations: ( a ) Section 41101;
( b ) Section 41504; except that the requirements of that section shall apply to: ( 1 ) Tariffs for through rates, fares, and charges filed jointly by air taxi operators or commuter air carriers with air carriers or with foreign air carriers subject to the tariff-filing requirements of Chapter 415; and
( 2 ) Tariffs required to be filed by air taxi operators or commuter air carriers which embody the provisions of the counterpart to Agreement 18900 as specified in part 203 of this chapter;
( c ) Section 41702, except for the requirements that air taxi operators and commuter air carriers shall: ( 1 ) Provide safe service, equipment, and facilities in connection with air transportation;
( 2 ) Provide adequate service insofar as that requires them to comply with parts 252 and 382 of this chapter;
( 3 ) Observe and enforce just and reasonable joint rates, fares, and charges, and just and reasonable classifications, rules, regulations and practices as provided in tariffs filed jointly by air taxi operators or commuter air carriers with certificated air carriers or with foreign air carriers; and
( 4 ) Establish just, reasonable, and equitable divisions of such joint rates, fares, and charges as between air carriers participating therein which shall not unduly prefer or prejudice any of such participating air carriers;
( d ) Section 41310, except that the requirements of that subsection shall apply to through service provided pursuant to tariffs filed jointly by air taxi operators or commuter air carriers with certificated air carriers or with foreign air carriers and to transportation of the handicapped to the extent that that is required by part 382 of this chapter;
( e ) Section 41902;
( f ) Section 41708.