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 Artificial Life, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Eberhard
Schoeneburg, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company.

                                         /s/ Eberhard Schoeneburg
                                             Eberhard Schoeneburg
                                             Chief Executive Officer and
                                             Principal Financial Officer

May 14, 2004
EXHIBIT 10.5


Summary of Sales  Agreement by and between  Shenzhen BAK Battery Co.,  Ltd. (the
"Company")  and Zhongshan  Mingji  Battery Co., Ltd.  ("Zhongshan")  dated as of
October 25, 2003.

         The  contract  number for this  agreement  is  WI-BAK-2003-05-28.  This
agreement does not include an exact  quantity to be purchased by Zhongshan.  The
quantity is to be determined at the time of each sale.  From  September  2003 to
September  2004,  the sales  volume  was RMB  58,941,628.09  Yuan.  These  sales
constituted 15% of the total sales of the Company for the period  September 2003
to  September  2004.  The  Company is liable for breach of contract in the event
that the quality of the battery cell causes the product to malfunction.
# C_2011269EN.01005402.xml

| 10.9.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 269/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.9.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 269/54

---

Action brought on 15 July 2011 — Basic v OHIM — Repsol YPF (basic)

(Case T-372/11)

2011/C 269/120

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Basic Aktiengesellschaft Lebensmittelhandel (Munich, Germany) (represented by: D. Altenburg, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Repsol YPF, SA (Madrid, Spain)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 31 March 2011 in case R 1440/2010-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 31 March 2011 in case R 1440/2010-1;

| — | Dismiss the appeal in case No R 1440/2010-1 regarding ruling on opposition No B 1384694 |
| --- | --- |

—

Dismiss the appeal in case No R 1440/2010-1 regarding ruling on opposition No B 1384694

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs of this proceeding. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs of this proceeding.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘basic’, in yellow, blue and red, for goods and services in classes 3, 4, 5, 16, 18, 21, 25, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 39, 43, 44 and 45 — Community trade mark application No 6752811

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 5648159 of the figurative mark ‘BASIC’, for services in classes 35, 37 and 39

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition for part of the contested services in class 35 and all the contested services in class 39. The opposition was rejected for the remaining services in class 35

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the decision of the Opposition Division to the extent it rejected the opposition for part of the services in class 35. Rejected the CTM application for these services and dismissed the appeal for the remaining services in class 35

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly assumed the existence of a likelihood of confusion between the applied mark and the opposed mark.

Pleas in law:

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<CIK> 0001007020
<NAME> INTEGRATED SYSTEMS CONSULTING GROUP, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           4,275
<SECURITIES>                                     4,551
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,727
<ALLOWANCES>                                       260
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                17,460
<PP&E>                                           4,969
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,716
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  20,807
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,410
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            46
<OTHER-SE>                                      18,351
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    20,807
<SALES>                                          8,889
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 8,889
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,988
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,036
<INCOME-TAX>                                       435
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                601
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       601
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .07


</TABLE>
Case 2:15-cv-11080-MOB-APP ECF No. 16-1, PageID.350 Filed 04/07/15 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:15-cv-11080-MOB-APP ECF No. 16-1, PageID.351 Filed 04/07/15 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:15-cv-11080-MOB-APP ECF No. 16-1, PageID.352 Filed 04/07/15 Page 3 of 3
Editorial Note on Part 160
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 160 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, 59786, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 160.047-6 Marking. ( a ) Each buoyant vest must have the following information clearly marked in waterproof lettering that can be read at a distance of 2 feet: Inspected and tested in accordance with U.S. Coast Guard regulations. (Kapok or Fibrous glass) buoyant material provides a minimum buoyant force of (16 lb., 11 lb., or 71 ⁄ 4 lb.). Dry out thoroughly when wet. Do not snag or puncture inner plastic cover. If pads become waterlogged, replace device. Approved for use on all recreational boats and on uninspected commercial vessels less than 40 feet in length not carrying passengers for hire by persons weighing (over 90 lb., 50 to 90 lb., or less than 50 lb.). U.S. Coast Guard Approval No. 160.047/(assigned manufacturer's No.)/(Revision No.); (Model No.). (Name and address of manufacturer or distributor.). (Lot No.).
( b ) *Waterproof marking tags.* Marking for buoyant vests shall be sufficiently waterproof so that after 72 hours submergence in water, it will withstand vigorous rubbing by hand while wet without the printed matter becoming illegible.
[CGD 72-163R, 38 FR 8119, Mar. 28, 1973, as amended by CGD 75-008, 43 FR 9770, Mar. 9, 1978; USCG-2013-0263, 79 FR 56499, Sept. 22, 2014]
# C_2011347EN.01003301.xml

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/33

---

Order of the General Court of 28 September 2011 — Complex v OHIM — Kajometal (KX)

(Case T-206/11) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Refusal of registration - Withdrawal of application for registration - No need to adjudicate)

2011/C 347/56

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Complex S.A. (Łódź, Poland) (represented by: R. Rumpel, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Walicka, agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Kajometal s.r.o. (Dolný Kubín, Slovakia)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 January 2011 (Case R 864/2010-2) in opposition proceedings between Complex S.A. and Kajometal s.r.o.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | Each party shall bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Each party shall bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 194, 2.7.2011.

1

---
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1


                            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 Grand Central Financial Corp.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, William R. Williams,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes- Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Company as of and for the period covered by the Report.





                                            /s/ William R. Williams
                                            -------------------------
                                            William R. Williams
                                            Chief Executive Officer
                                            August 14, 2002
Case 5:15-cv-11048-JEL-APP ECF No. 1, PageID.1 Filed 03/20/15 Page 1 of 3
Case 5:15-cv-11048-JEL-APP ECF No. 1, PageID.2 Filed 03/20/15 Page 2 of 3
Case 5:15-cv-11048-JEL-APP ECF No. 1, PageID.3 Filed 03/20/15 Page 3 of 3
1 In The 

### Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________ N O . 09
- 2 0
- 00278
- CR NO. 09
- 20
- 00279
- CR

__________________ TAMASHA FUNT , Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

__________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No s . 17
- 27248, 17
- 27225

__________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Pursuant to plea bargain agreement s , a ppellant Tamasha Funt pleaded guilty
to aggravated robbery and credit card abuse . In c ause number 17

- 27248 , the trial court found the evidence sufficient to find Funt guilty of aggravated robbery , but deferred further proceedings , placed Funt on community supervision for ten years , and assessed a $1000 fine

. In cause number 17

- 272 25 , t he trial court found the evidence sufficient to find Funt guilty of credit card abuse , but deferred further2 proceedings , placed Fun t on community supervision for five years , and assessed a $ 500 fine

. Subsequently, the State filed motion s to revoke Funt ’s community supervision

. I n both cases , Funt pleaded “true” to violating the term s of the community supervision order. After c onducting an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found th e evidence was sufficient in both cases to find that F unt violated the terms of h er community supervision

. In cause number 17

- 27248, the trial court revoked Funt’s community supervision, found Funt guilty of aggravated robbery , and assessed punishment at eight years of confinement. In cause number 17

- 27225, the trial court revoked Funt’s community supervision, found Funt gui lty of credit card abuse , and assessed punishment at eight een months of confinement. The trial court ordered the sentences to run concurrently.
Funt’s appellate counsel filed Anders brief s t hat present counsel’s professional evaluation of the record s and conclude s the appeal s are frivolous. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). On July 23, 2021 , w e granted an extension of time for Funt to file
pro se brief s
. We received no responses from Funt.
We have reviewed the appellate record s , and we agree with counsel’s conclusion that no arguable issues support the appeal s . Therefore, we find it

unnecess ary to order appointment of new counsel to re

- brief the appeal s
. Cf. Stafford3 v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s judgment s
. 1
AFFIRMED.

_________________________ W. SCOTT GOLEMON Chief Justice

Submitted on September 28, 2021 Opinion Delivered October 6, 2021 Do Not Publish Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.

1 Funt may challenge our decision in th ese case s by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
###### Editorial Note on Part 164

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 164 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59787, Oct. 1, 2012.

#### § 164.009-13 Furnace calibration.

A calibration is performed on each new furnace and on each existing furnace as often as necessary to ensure that the furnace is in good working order. In each calibration the energy input to the furnace is adjusted so that the furnace thermocouple gives a steady reading of 750 ±10 °C. The wall temperature of the furnace tube is then measured by an optical micro-pyrometer at intervals of 10mm on 3 equally spaced vertical axes. The furnace is correctly calibrated if the temperature of the furnace tube wall is between 825 and 875 °C. 50 mm above and below the midline of the wall and if the average wall temperature is approximately 850 °C.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-85,369-01

IN RE ROBERT EARL WILLIAMS, Relator

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS

CAUSE NO. 1409122-A IN THE 183 DISTRICT COURT RD

FROM HARRIS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Relator has filed a motion for leave to file a writ of mandamus pursuant to the original

jurisdiction of this Court. In it, he contends that he filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus

in the 183 District Court of Harris County, that more than 35 days have elapsed, and that the rd

application has not yet been forwarded to this Court.

In these circumstances, additional facts are needed. Respondent, the District Clerk of Harris

County, is ordered to file a response, which may be made by submitting the record on such habeas

corpus application, submitting a copy of a timely filed order which designates issues to be

investigated (see McCree v. Hampton, 824 S.W.2d 578, 579 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992)), or stating that
2

Relator has not filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus in Harris County. Should the

response include an order designating issues, proof of the date the district attorney’s office was

served with the habeas application shall also be submitted with the response. This application for

leave to file a writ of mandamus shall be held in abeyance until Respondent has submitted the

appropriate response. Such response shall be submitted within 30 days of the date of this order.

Filed: August 10, 2016

Do not publish
Case 2:15-cv-11080-MOB-APP ECF No. 16-2, PageID.353 Filed 04/07/15 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:15-cv-11080-MOB-APP ECF No. 16-2, PageID.354 Filed 04/07/15 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:15-cv-11080-MOB-APP ECF No. 16-2, PageID.355 Filed 04/07/15 Page 3 of 3
Editorial Note on Part 160
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 160 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, 59786, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 160.016-5 Procedure for approval. ( a ) *General.* Flame safety lamps are approved for use on merchant vessels only by the Commandant (CG-ENG-4), Attn: Lifesaving and Fire Safety Division, U.S. Coast Guard Stop 7509, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20593-7509. Correspondence relating to the subject matter of this specification shall be addressed to the Commander of the Coast Guard District in which such devices are manufactured.
( b ) *Pre-approval sample and plan.* In order to apply for approval of a flame safety lamp for use on merchant vessels, submit one complete sample, together with four copies of an arrangement plan (parts drawings are not required), together with a statement that the lamp meets the construction requirements of Military Specification MIL-L-1204, as amended, to the Commander of the Coast Guard District who will forward same to the Commandant for determination as to its suitability for use on merchant vessels.
[CGFR 50-12, 15 FR 3093, May 20, 1950, as amended by USCG-2013-0671, 78 FR 60156, Sept. 30, 2013]
###### Editorial Note on Part 2

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear by USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49223, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2013-0671, 78 FR 60144, Sept. 30, 2013.

#### § 2.45-1 Definitions.

The following definitions apply to this subpart:

*Administration* means the Government of the State whose flag the ship is entitled to fly.

*Classification society* means an organization that, at a minimum, verifies that a vessel meets requirements embodying the technical rules, regulations, standards, guidelines and associated surveys, and inspections covering the design, construction, and/or through life compliance of a ship's structure and essential engineering and electrical systems.

*Recognized Organization (RO)* means an organization authorized to act on behalf of an Administration.

*Regional port state control secretariat* means an organization established to collect and maintain port state control inspection data in addition to other functions under a regional agreement among countries.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

                    Notice is hereby given of the cancellation of the National Library of Medicine Special Emphasis Panel, July 11, 2007, 8:30 a.m. to July 11, 2007, 5 p.m., Embassy Suites at the Chevy Chase Pavilion, 4300 Military Road, NW., Washington, DC 20015 which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on March 28, 2007, 72 FR 14599.                 

      ( print page 19548)    
Dated: April 11, 2007.

Jennifer Spaeth, 

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 07-1897  Filed 4-17-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE>  5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary information extracted from the Registrant Company
Consolidated Balance Sheet (Unaudited) for March 31, 1999 and Consolidated
Statement of Operations (Unaudited) for the Three Months ended March 31, 1999
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>                                
<CIK>      0001071003
<NAME>     COAXIAL LLC
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                    MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                                4,271
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                         2,991
<ALLOWANCES>                                            675
<INVENTORY>                                               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      6,747
<PP&E>                                               84,920
<DEPRECIATION>                                       48,488
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       56,525
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                 11,902
<BONDS>                                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                                  0
<OTHER-SE>                                         (23,944)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         56,525
<SALES>                                              11,696
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     11,696
<CGS>                                                 8,280
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                         8,280
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    1,552
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                       1,863
<INCOME-TAX>                                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   1,863
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                          1,863
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                             0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                             0
         

</TABLE>
#### Henry Taylor, *Appellant, v.*Amos N. Fitch, Respondent.

Judgment reversed, new trial granted; referee discharged, costs to abide event. Opinion by

Osborn, J.