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

| (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/              Richard Szefc |
|         | Richard                SzefcChief                Financial Officer |
|         |                                                               |
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-30623

Summary Calendar

JERRY PAUL FRANCIS,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

JAMES M. LEBLANC, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY 

AND CORRECTIONS; SHERYL RANATZA, The Committee on Parole and 

Pardon Board, Chairperson,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 3:15-CV-411

Before SMITH, WIENER, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jerry Paul Francis, Louisiana prisoner # 86386, appeals from the district 

court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as legally frivolous and for 

failure to state a claim. The district court dismissed without prejudice to 

Francis’s right to reassert his claims in a federal habeas corpus proceeding 

after exhausting available state court remedies. On appeal, Francis argues 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 24, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-30623 Document: 00514928623 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/24/2019
No. 18-30623

2

that (1) the Louisiana Parole and Pardon Board’s denial of parole contravened 

Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010), and Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 

(2012), and (2) his challenge is cognizable under § 1983.

We review the dismissal de novo. See Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371, 

373 (5th Cir. 2005). Because the Louisiana Parole and Pardon Board 

determined that Francis was eligible for parole and provided him with some 

meaningful opportunity to obtain release, he has not shown a violation under 

Graham and Miller. See Graham, 560 U.S. at 75. As his complaint was 

frivolous on this ground, it was properly subject to dismissal under 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and 1915A(b)(1). See Morris v. McAllester, 702 F.3d 187, 

189 (5th Cir. 2012). We therefore do not need to consider the district court’s 

alternative basis for dismissal. See Sojourner T. v. Edwards, 974 F.2d 27, 30 

(5th Cir. 1992).

Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 18-30623 Document: 00514928623 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/24/2019
EXHIBIT 32.1 -- CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF FIRST CAPITAL
INTERNATIONAL, INC., PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
AND SECTION 1350 OF 18 U.S.C. 63.


I,  Alex Genin, the Chief Executive Officer of First Capital International, Inc.
hereby  certify that First Capital International, Inc.'s periodic report on Form
10QSB  and  the  financial  statements contained therein fully complies with the
requirements  of  Section  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(15  U.S.C.  78m or 78o(d) and that information contained in the periodic report
on  Form 10QSB and the financial statements contained therein fairly represents,
in  all material respects, the financial condition and results of the operations
of  First  Capital  International,  Inc.

Date: May 13, 2005          /s/ Alex Genin
                           Chief Executive Officer
# EUR-Lex - 31996R1242 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31996R1242

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 1242/96 of 28 June 1996 fixing the minimum purchase price for lemons delivered to the processing industry and the financial compensation payable after processing thereof up to the end of the 1996/97 marketing year **

*
Official Journal L 161 , 29/06/1996 P. 0115 - 0115 *

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1242/96 of 28 June 1996 fixing the minimum purchase price for lemons delivered to the processing industry and the financial compensation payable after processing thereof up to the end of the 1996/97 marketing year

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1035/77 of 17 May 1977 laying down special measures to encourage the marketing of products processed from lemons (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1199/90 (2), and in particular Article 3 thereof,

Whereas, pursuant to Article 1 (3) of Regulation (EEC) No 1035/77, the minimum price which processors must pay to producers is fixed, as from the 1991/92 marketing year at 105 % of the average withdrawal price calculated in accordance with the first indent of Article 18 (1) (a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 (3), as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1363/95 (4); whereas the minimum price must be fixed on the basis of the basic and buying-in prices fixed by Council Regulation (EC) No 1190/96 (5) and reduced by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1238/96 (6);

Whereas, pursuant to Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 1035/77, financial compensation cannot exceed the difference between the minimum purchase price referred to in Article 1 of that Regulation and the prices obtained for the raw material in producer third countries;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Fruit and Vegetables,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Up to the end of the 1996/97 marketing year the minimum price referred to in Article 1 (3) of Regulation (EEC) No 1035/77 shall be as follows:

Minimum price: ECU 15,77/100 kg net.

The minimum price shall refer to products ex-producers' packaging stations.

Article 2

Up to the end of the 1996/97 marketing year the financial compensation referred to in Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 1035/77 shall be as follows:

Financial compensation: ECU 10,66/100 kg net.

Article 3

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

It shall apply from 1 July 1996.

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

Done at Brussels, 28 June 1996.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ No L 125, 19. 5. 1977, p. 3.

(2) OJ No L 119, 11. 5. 1990, p. 61.

(3) OJ No L 118, 20. 5. 1972, p. 1.

(4) OJ No L 132, 16. 6. 1995, p. 8.

(5) OJ No L 156, 29. 6. 1996.

(6) See page 110 of this Official Journal.
#### FABER, EXECUTOR, v. UNITED STATES

[81 C. Cls. 142; 296 U. S. 596]

Petition for writ of certiorari *denied*by the Supreme Court October 14, 1935.
### M A N D A T E

TO THE 419TH DISTRIC T COURT of TRAVIS COUNTY, GREET INGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas, on the 24th day of September, 2015 , the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

Sandeep Nanda, Appel lant,

v.

Corey Huinker Appellee.

CAUSE NO. 13

- 13

- 00615

- CV (Tr.Ct.No. D

- 1

- GN

- 13

- 001387)

was determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause o n

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed . The Court

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED . Costs of the appeal are adjudged

against appellant.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

Sep tember 24, 2015.



WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Co urt of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas, in this behalf, and in all things have it duly recognized, obeyed and executed.

WITNESS, the Hon. Rogelio Valdez, Chief Justice of our Court of Appeals, with the seal thereof affixed, at the City of Edi nburg, Texas this 8th day of December, 2015.

Dorian E. Ramirez, CLERK
# EUR-Lex - 31995D0327 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31995D0327

**95/327/EC: Council Decision of 17 July 1995 amending the Agreements in the form of exchanges of letters adjusting the quantities provided for in the voluntary restraint agreements concluded by the European Community with Australia and New Zealand respectively on trade in sheepmeat and goatmeat as a result of the enlargement of the Community **

*
Official Journal L 191 , 12/08/1995 P. 0029 - 0029 *

COUNCIL DECISION of 17 July 1995 amending the Agreements in the form of exchanges of letters adjusting the quantities provided for in the voluntary restraint agreements concluded by the European Community with Australia and New Zealand respectively on trade in sheepmeat and goatmeat as a result of the enlargement of the Community (95/327/EC)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 113 in conjunction with the first sentence of Article 228 (2) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Whereas the voluntary restraint agreements concluded by the European Community with Australia and New Zealand respectively on trade in sheepmeat and goatmeat provide for the adjustment of the quantities which may be imported under those arrangements on the accession of new Member States;

Whereas the Commission has consulted the abovementioned countries on the adjustment for the first six months of 1995 of the quantities set in the 1994 Agreements in the form of exchanges of letters extending the adaptations to the principal voluntary restraint agreements,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The Agreements in the form of exchanges of letters between the European Community and Australia and New Zealand respectively, adjusting the quantities provided for in the voluntary restraint agreements on trade in sheepmeat and goatmeat as a result of the enlargement of the Community, are hereby approved on behalf of the European Community.

The texts of the Agreements are attached to this Decision.

Article 2

The President of the Council is hereby authorized to designate the person empowered to sign the Agreements in order to bind the Community.

Done at Luxembourg, 17 July 1995.

For the Council

The President

L. ATIENZA SERNA
#### Gibson Ashcroft, esq. *against*Adriel Clark.

ON CERTIORARI.

Style of action. *(a)***Statute of frauds.

Consideration of promise. (b)

Demand 5( dollars, and trial by six men. (c)

CHAPMAN attorney.

(a)

*а) Stokes vs. Coonis, 1 South. 159. Pierson vs. Pierson, 1 Hal. 168.*

(b)

*Buckley vs.*Beardslee, *ante 570.*

(c)

 See *Parker vs. Munday, Coxe 70. Falkenburgh vs. Cramer, Coxe 31. McCormick vs. Brookfield, 1 South. 72. Jones vs. Oliver, 2 Hal. 123.*

Opinion of the Court.

Kirkpatrick C. J.

Upon looking into the transcript and proceedings in this case, it appears that the justice has not entered in his docket the style of action, as by the statute, he is required to do. He calls it *an action on agreement to pay money,*which is no style of action known 1 in the law.

It appears, further, that the copy of account filed is not against *Gibson Ashcroft,*the defendant, but against *Robert Ashcroft;*that the principal item, in this account, is in these words: “ To 1 execution granted by esqr. *R. S. Risley, Decr.*10, 1813, for the sum of $28.43 ; costs $1.05 ; interest $7.04.” Then at the bottom of the account, is this note: “ The above account assumed to be paid by *Gibson Ashcroft,*esq.”

This is altogether irregular; the entry in the docket is wrong; the state of demand is insufficient; it ought to have shewn against *whom the execution was, and how *Robert Ashcroft*became liable to pay it; and even if it had done all this, it does not set forth how, when, or for *667what consideration *Gibson Ashcroft,*the defendant, assumed, nor any other circumstance to shew that assumption was good in the law, or in any way obligatory upon him.

Besides all this, the demand is for fifty dollars, and the trial is by a jury of six men.

For all these causes, let the judgment be reversed.
§ 415.107 Safety review document. ( a ) An applicant must file a safety review document that contains all the information required by §§ 415.109—415.133. An applicant must file the information for a safety review document as required by the outline in appendix B of this part. An applicant must file a sufficiently complete safety review document, except for the ground safety analysis report, no later than six months before the applicant brings any launch vehicle to the proposed launch site.
( b ) A launch operator's safety review document must: ( 1 ) Contain a glossary of unique terms and acronyms used in alphabetical order;
( 2 ) Contain a listing of all referenced standards, codes, and publications;
( 3 ) Be logically organized, with a clear and consistent page numbering system and must identify cross-referenced topics;
( 4 ) Use equations and mathematical relationships derived from or referenced to a recognized standard or text, and must define all algebraic parameters;
( 5 ) Include the units of all numerical values provided; and
( 6 ) Include a legend or key that identifies all symbols used for any schematic diagrams.
( c ) An applicant's safety review document may include sections not required by appendix B of this part. An applicant must identify each added section by using the word “added” in front of the title of the section. In the first paragraph of the section, an applicant must explain any addition to the outline in appendix B of this part.
( d ) If a safety review document section required by appendix B of this part does not apply to an applicant's proposed launch, an applicant must identify the sections in the application by the words “not applicable” preceding the title of the section. In the first paragraph of the section, an applicant must describe and justify why the section does not apply.
( e ) An applicant may reference documentation previously filed with the FAA.
## NUMBER 13

- 2 1

- 00 3 32

- CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

– EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

LASHONDA MARIE POLLACK

, Appellant

,

v.

JAISHA GLENTAE ROBERTS HOFFENDEN

, A ppellee

.

____________________________________________________________

On a ppeal from the 169th District Court

of Bell County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________



## MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Benavides , Hinojosa , and Silva Memorandum Opinion by Justice Hinojosa

This matter is before the Court on appellant ’ s unopposed first amended notice of

settlement and nonsuit

. 1 The court construes the notice as a n amen ded motion to

dismiss

. Upon review of the informal settlement agreement and appellant ’ s amended

1 This case is before the Court on transfer from the Third Court of Appeals pursuant to a docket equalization order issued by the Supreme Court of Texas. See T EX

. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN

. § 73.001.2 motion, it appears the matters in controversy between the parties in this cause have been

full y and finally resolved.

The Court is of the opinion that the amended motion should be granted. See T EX

.

R. A PP

. P . 42.1(a)(1). Therefore, this cause is reinstated , the amended motion to dismiss

is granted, and the appeal is hereby dismissed. C osts will be taxed against the appellant

.

See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.1(d)

. B ecause the appeal is dismissed at parties ’ request, no

motion for rehearing shall be entertained

.

LETICIA HINOJOSA

Justice

D elivered and filed on the

21st day of July, 2022.
Appendix C 

## Safety Case

The DJ I Inspire 1 is a quadcopter developed and produced b y DJ I Innovations. I t weighs 6.8 lbs. and is made primaril y of carbon tubing and plastic.

The gimbaled camera has the ability to rotate 360° horizontally . To aid in the safety of flight, there will be a pilot to operate the flight aspect of the Inspire 1 and to ensure that it maintains an appropriate safety distance to people and buildings at all times. There will be another operator to control /operate the camera and will f ocus on what the camera is looking at.

## Autopilot

The autopilot sy stem the DJIInspire 1 uses is the DJIA2 autopilot. The A2 was introduced in August of 2013 and has had a very reliable and safe history . They have constantly

sought to improve the capabilities and safet y of the autopilot sy stem to include a function that will not allow it to fly

too close to airports

. This function cannot be overridden and is hard coded into the software.


## Operations While the autopilot sy stem supports functions at over 1.5 nautical miles (NM), with the exception request being sought b y Creative Aerial Media , all flight operations will be within 1/4 NM of the pilot. This will allow line of sight operations in an extremely safe manner. It will allow for the pilot

- in

- command to maneuver the UAV in an y needed manner to maintain a safe distance from other aircraft or people that may come within the safet y envelope established before flight. Along with the NOTAM filed 72 hours before operations, the PI C will also have a hand held radio to maintain contact with the closest ATC tower. If there is an airport in the area that is not towered, then the radio will be tuned to the appropriate CTAF. Itwill be monitored 30 minutes before flight operations begin with warning calls that operations will begin at 15 min, 10 min, 5 min, and one minute intervals. All flights will be conducted at or under 400 feet above g round level (AGL). If there are an y manned aircraft within 3 NM, either operations will cease or if in contact with ATC, all operations will be conducted at 100 feet AGL with approval from local ATC

. If there is manned activity with line of site of any one associated with operations, all ope rations will cease until 10 minutes after the last siting of an y manned aircraft. Once the airspace is clear of manned aircraft, operations will continue with coordination from local ATC.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

March 22, 2017

t0315 

# Order

Clerk March 22, 2017

154353 & (44)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellant/

Cross

- Appellee,

v SC: 154353

COA: 329686

Wayne CC: 14

- 008080

- FH

STEVEN COLLINS,

Defendant

- Appellee /

Cross

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 5, 2016

judgment of the Court of Appeals and the application for leave to appeal as cross

appellant are considered, and they are DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the

questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Wells Real Estate Fund XII, L.P. on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), the undersigned,
Leo F. Wells, III, Principal Executive Officer of the corporate general partner of one of the General Partners of the Registrant, and Douglas P. Williams, Principal Financial Officer of the corporate general partner of one of the General
Partners of the Registrant, hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that, to the best of our 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 Registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                           
|---------------------------
|/s/ Leo F. Wells, III      
|Leo F. Wells, III          
|Principal Executive Officer
|November 8, 2007           



|                           
|---------------------------
|/s/ Douglas P. Williams    
|Douglas P. Williams        
|Principal Financial Officer
|November 8, 2007
#### WALL v DAYTON FEDERATION CO et

Ohio Supreme Court

No 21717.

Decided Nov. 20, 1929

Syllabus by

DAY, J.

APPEAL

(30 G) The nature of the action, as shown by the pleadings and the character of the relief sought under them, determines whether such action presents a case in chancery or an action in law.

CONTRACTS

(150 B) Where a petition declares upon a breach of contract and recites facts which, if proven, woul.d entitle the plaintiff to a money judgment, and the prayer of such petition asks for a money judgment and the' answer, denies the right thereto, such action is one at law “for money only”, in which either party might demand a jury trial, and is not a suit in chancery for equitable relief, even though the appointment of a receiver, an allowance of an injunction and an accounting are asked as ancillary and incidental to the main relief sought. Such action is not appealable.

Marshall, C. J., Kinkade, Robinson, Jones, Matthias and Allen, JJ., concur.